Blank v. Wells Fargo Bank

Filing 8

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 10/13/17 RECOMMENDING that this action be DISMISSED, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PAUL LOUIS BLANK,

8

Plaintiff,

9

No. 2:16-cv-2422-JAM-CMK

vs.

ORDER

10

WELLS FARGO BANK,

11

Defendant.

12

/

13

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. On May 25, 2017, the court

14

directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days. Plaintiff was warned that failure

15

to file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and

16

failure to comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. To date, plaintiff has not

17

complied.

18

In addition, on July 19, 2017, mail directed to plaintiff was returned by the United

19

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

20

183(b), any party appearing pro se must file and serve a notice of change of address within 63

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3)
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992).

10

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

11

amended complaint as directed and failure to file notice of change of address, the undersigned

12

finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate.

13

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

14

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

15

orders.

16

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22
23
24
25

DATED: October 13, 2017
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
2