Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01439/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01439-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCHA BUCK LARSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. SMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01439-BAM-PC

ORDER DISMISSING THIS ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND TO OBEY 

A COURT ORDER

Plaintiff Scha Buck Larson is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed 

before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 11.) 

On March 11, 2016, an order was entered, screening the complaint and requiring Plaintiff 

to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his intention to proceed only on the 

claims found to be cognizable. (ECF No. 12.) On March 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Notice of 

Change of Address, indicating that he was in custody at the San Diego County Central Jail. 

(ECF No. 13.) On April 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response to the screening order. Plaintiff 

indicated that he had been taken into local custody, but would be released soon. The April 14, 

2016, response indicated an address of the George F. Bailey Detention Center in San Diego 

County. On April 19, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff a thirty day extension of time in which to 

Case 1:15-cv-01439-BAM Document 18 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

comply with the March 11, 2016, screening order. The thirty day period passed, and Plaintiff 

failed to file a response to the March 11, 2016, screening order. 

A review of the docket indicated that the April 19, 2016, order was served on Plaintiff at 

an address other than that noted in his March 31, 2016, Notice of Change of Address, and the 

address noted in his April 14, 2016, response. Because the order granting Plaintiff an extension 

of time was not served on Plaintiff at his most recently indicated address, the Court granted 

Plaintiff a thirty day extension of time. The June 1, 2016, order granting Plaintiff a further 

extension of time was served on Plaintiff at both the San Diego County Jail and the address 

noted on the March 31, 2016, Notice of Change of Address. (ECF No. 16.) On June 13 and June 

17, 2016, the orders were returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable, indicating that 

Plaintiff was no longer at either of the addresses. The sixty-three day period in which to notify 

the Court of a current address pursuant to Local Rule 183(b) passed, and on September 1, 2016, 

an order to show cause was entered, directing Plaintiff to show cause, within fourteen days, why 

this action should not be dismissed for his failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. 

(ECF No. 17.) On September 12, 2016, the order was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as 

undeliverable at the street address provided by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the 

order to show cause. 

The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 

power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los 

Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to dismiss an action, 

the Court must weigh “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the litigation; (2) the 

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

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

sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 

2006)(internal quotations and citations omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to 

do, and are not conditions that met be met in order for a court to take action. Id. (citation 

omitted). Plaintiff has failed to respond to court orders and failed to keep the court informed of 

his current location.

Case 1:15-cv-01439-BAM Document 18 Filed 10/07/16 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s orders, IT 

IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and to obey a court order;

2. The Clerk’s Office is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01439-BAM Document 18 Filed 10/07/16 Page 3 of 3