Hopkins v. Dyer et al

Filing 18

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 10/21/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

8
9

v.
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTY
VALENTINE,
Defendant.

10

/

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff,

6
7

No. C 10-04239 SBA (PR)

GLENN EDWARD HOPKINS, JR.,

Plaintiff filed the instant pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the instant

12

case, it has been more than seven months since Plaintiff has communicated with the Court. Plaintiff

13

filed a change of address on March 1, 2011, indicating that he was no longer at San Quentin State

14

Prison and that his new address was at 5419 Foothill Blvd., Oakland, California 94521. However,

15

Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court since that date. Furthermore, mail sent to Plaintiff at

16

his new address was returned as undeliverable on May 31, 2011, with a note stating, "RETURN TO

17

SENDER, NO MAIL RECEPTACLE, UNABLE TO FORWARD."

18

In an Order dated July 15, 2011, the Court determined that it needed to establish Plaintiff's

19

current address and whether he intends to continue to prosecute this action. The Court informed

20

Plaintiff that if he failed to do so within thirty days, this action would be dismissed without

21

prejudice for failure to prosecute.

22

On July 22, 2011, the Court sent a copy of its July 15, 2011 Order to the following addresses:

23

5419 Foothill Blvd., Oakland, California 94521, and San Quentin State Prison, 1st Main Street, San

24

Quentin, California 94964. On July 25, 2011, mail was returned from the 5419 Foothill Blvd.

25

address as undeliverable stating, "RETURN TO SENDER-ATTEMPTED-NOT KNOWN-UNABLE

26

TO FORWARD." The Court assumes that Plaintiff received a copy of the Court's July 15, 2011

27

Order at the San Quentin State Prison address because it was not returned as undeliverable.

28

More than thirty days have passed, and Plaintiff has filed no response to the Court's

1

July 15, 2011 Order. Furthermore, Defendants have filed a "Motion for Administrative Relief to

2

Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to Local Rule 7-11."

3

A district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with a

626, 633 (1962); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). The court should consider

6

five factors before dismissing an action under Rule 41(b): (1) the public interest in the expeditious

7

resolution of the litigation: (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the

8

defendants; (4) the availability of less drastic sanctions; and (5) the public policy favoring the

9

disposition of actions on their merits. See Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130

10

(9th Cir. 1987).1 The first three factors, above, weigh in favor of dismissal in light of the amount of

11
For the Northern District of California

court order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S.

5

United States District Court

4

time that has passed -- six months -- without Plaintiff filing anything in this matter, including his not

12

responding to the Court's July 15, 2011 Order. The fourth factor also weighs in favor of dismissal

13

because less drastic sanctions would have little impact in light of Plaintiff's apparent lack of interest

14

in this case. Although the fifth factor appears to weigh against dismissal, dismissal is appropriate in

15

light of the other four factors. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding

16

district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing petition with prejudice where three of the five

17

factors weighed in favor of dismissal).

18
19

In light of the foregoing, Defendants' motion (docket no. 17) is GRANTED, and this action is
hereby DISMISSED for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

20

The Clerk of the Court shall close the file and terminate any pending motions.

21

This Order terminates Docket no. 17.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

DATED: 10/21/11
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

1

The court should also afford the litigant prior notice of its intention to dismiss, id. at 133, as
this Court has done.
G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.10\Hopkins4239.41(b)-Dismissal.wpd

2

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

GLENN EDWARD HOPKINS JR,
Case Number: CV10-04239 SBA
Plaintiff,

5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
v.
ALAMEDA COUNTY et al,
Defendant.

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on October 25, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said
envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.

13
14
15
16
17
18

Glenn Edward Hopkins
5419 Foothill Blvd.
Oakland, CA 94251
Glenn Edward Hopkins F51996
California State Prison - San Quentin
1st Main Street
San Quentin, CA 94964

19
20
21

Dated: October 25, 2011
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3