Alvarado v. County of Tulare

Filing 17

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Dismissal of Action for Failure to Prosecute signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/31/2048. Referred to Judge O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 11/19/2018.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL DEAN ALVARADO, JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

COUNTY OF TULARE, et al.,

15

Case No. 1:17-cv-01396-BAM (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Defendants.

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

16
17

I.

Background

18

Plaintiff Daniel Dean Alvarado, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a former detainee in Bob Wiley

19

Detention Center proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42

20

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on October 3, 2017, in the United States District

21

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. (ECF No. 1.) The action was

22

transferred to this Court on October 17, 2017. (ECF Nos. 4–6.) This matter was referred to a

23

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

24

On July 26, 2018, the Court issued a screening order granting Plaintiff leave to file an

25

amended complaint within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 16.) On August 13, 2018, the Court’s

26

screening order was returned as “Undeliverable, RTS-attempted-not known.” Plaintiff has not

27

filed an amended complaint, a notice of change of address, or otherwise communicated with the

28

Court.
1

1

II.

2

Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Local

3

Discussion

Rule 183(b) provides:

4

7

Address Changes. A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and
opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail directed to a
plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service,
and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixtythree (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action
without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

8

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also provides for dismissal of an action for failure to

9

prosecute.1

5
6

10

According to the Court’s docket, Plaintiff’s address change was due no later than October

11

22, 2018. Plaintiff has failed to file a change of address and he has not otherwise been in contact

12

with the Court. “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district

13

court is required to weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

14

litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants;

15

(4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less

16

drastic sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks

17

and citation omitted); accord Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010); In re

18

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006).

19

These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be met in

20

order for a court to take action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 (citation omitted).

21

Given Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Court’s order, the expeditious resolution of

22

litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Id. at 1227.

23

More importantly, given the Court’s apparent inability to communicate with Plaintiff, there are no

24

other reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and his

25

failure to apprise the Court of his current address. Id. at 1228–29; Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441. The

26

Court will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to

27
1

28

Courts may dismiss actions sua sponte under Rule 41(b) based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Hells Canyon
Pres. Council v. U. S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

2

1

prosecute this action.

2

III.

3

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a

4
5

Conclusion and Recommendation

district judge to this action.
Furthermore, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without

6

prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 183(b).

7

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

8

Judge assigned to the case, under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)

9

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

10

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

11

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

12

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual

13

findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v.

14

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

October 31, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3