Archini v. Sanders, et al.

Filing 10

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 1/28/16 recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GUY ROBERT ARCHINI,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:14-cv-1392-KJM-CMK-P

Plaintiff,
vs.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

ROXANNE SANDERS, et al.,
Defendants.
/

17

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. On September 28, 2015, the court directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint

19

within 30 days. Plaintiff was warned that failure to file an amended complaint may result in

20

dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders.

21

See Local Rule 110. To date, plaintiff has not complied.

22

In addition, on October 13, 2015, mail directed to plaintiff was returned by the

23

United States Postal Service as undeliverable. Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local

24

Rule 183(b), any party appearing pro se must file and serve a notice of change of address within

25

63 days of mail being returned. To date, more than 63 days have elapsed since mail was returned

26

and plaintiff has not notified the court of a change of address.
1

1

The court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of

2

dismissal. See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v.

3

U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's

4

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3)

5

the risk of prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

6

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran,

7

46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an

8

appropriate sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor.

9

See Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is

10

appropriate where there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

11

1423 (9th Cir. 1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to

12

comply with an order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

13

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992).

14

Having considered these factors, and in light of plaintiff’s failure to file an

15

amended complaint as directed and failure to submit a notice of change of address, the court

16

finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate.

17

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be

18

dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and

19

orders.

20

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

21

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

22

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///
2

1

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

2

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.

3

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

4
5
6
7

DATED: January 28, 2016
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3