(PC) Portillo v. City of Shafter, et al.

Filing 29

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Dismissal of Action for Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 03/04/2025. Referred to Judge Thurston. Objections to F&R due within Fourteen-Days. (Deputy Clerk CM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARIO R. RODAS PORTILLO,

12
13
14

Case No. 1:23-cv-00920-JLT-BAM (PC)

Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

v.
CITY OF SHAFTER, et al.,

15

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Defendants.

16
17

I.

Background

18

Plaintiff Mario R. Rodas Portillo, a former county jail inmate and former state prisoner,

19

proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On

20

January 15, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and granted him

21

leave to amend within thirty days. (Doc. 28.) On January 27, 2025, the Court’s order was

22

returned as “Undeliverable, Unable to Forward.”

23

II.

24

Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of a current address at all times. Effective

25
26
27
28

Discussion

January 1, 2025, Local Rule 183(b) provides:
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 thirty (30) days thereafter of a
current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to

1

1

prosecute.

2

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

3

prosecute.1
Plaintiff’s address change was due no later than February 26, 2025. Plaintiff has failed to

4
5

submit an effective change of address or otherwise update the Court.

6

“In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is

7

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

8

(2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public

9

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

10

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

11

citation omitted); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217,

12

1226 (9th Cir. 2006). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions

13

that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 (citation

14

omitted).

15

Given Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Court’s order, the need for expeditious

16

resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. In

17

re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1227. The third factor, risk of prejudice to the defendant, also weighs in

18

favor of dismissal, as a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay

19

in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth

20

factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits.

21

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little

22

support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but

23

whose conduct impedes progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re PPA, 460 F.3d

24

at 1228 (citation omitted). More importantly, based on the Court’s apparent inability to

25

communicate with Plaintiff, there are no other reasonable alternatives available to address

26
27
28

1

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).
1

A court may take judicial notice of its own records. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119
(9th Cir. 1980) (“[A] court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases.”).
2

1

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and the failure to apprise the Court of a current address.

2

Id. at 1228–29; Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441. The Court will therefore recommend that this action be

3

dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action.

4

III.

Conclusion and Recommendation

5

For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

6

without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 183(b).

7

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

8

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

9

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may

10

file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to

11

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed

12

fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page

13

number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page

14

limit may not be considered. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

15

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

16

findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter

17

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

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe

March 4, 2025

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3