(PC) Vega v. Solano County Jail et al

Filing 19

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 5/7/2024 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 after being served with these Findings and Recommendations. (Kyono, V)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ELISSIA SALUD VEGA,

12
13
14

No. 2:23-CV-1074-KJM-DMC-P

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. MERRICK,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

17
18
19

U.S.C. § 1983.
On January 29, 2024, mail directed to Plaintiff was returned by the United States

20

Postal Service as undeliverable. Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 183(b), any

21

party appearing pro se must file and serve a notice of change of address within 63 days of mail

22

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

23

has not notified the Court of a change of address.

24

The Court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal.

25

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

26

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

27

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of

28

prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits;
1

1

and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,

2

53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an appropriate

3

sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone,

4

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

5

there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.

6

1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to inform the district

7

court and parties of a change of address pursuant to local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d

8

1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam).

9
10
11
12

Having considered these factors, and in light of Plaintiff’s failure to submit a
notice of change of address, the Court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed,
without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders.

13

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19
20

Dated: May 7, 2024

____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2