Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00128/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00128-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY HILL, et al, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

BAKERSFIELD POLICE )

DEPARTMENT, et al, )

)

Defendants. )

)

)

1:06-cv-0128 OWW TAG 

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Anthony Hill seeks to proceed pro se with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of himself

and plaintiff Elsie Hill. When this action commenced on February

6, 2006, plaintiff Hill was incarcerated at the Fresno County

Jail in Fresno, California. (Doc. 1). 

The Complaint filed on February 6, 2006 names Anthony Hill

and Elsie Hope as plaintiffs. However, only Anthony Hill signed

the Complaint. (Doc. 1). 

On June 12, 2006, the Court issued an Order reassigning this

action to United States District Judge Oliver W. Wanger and

served the Order on plaintiff Hill at the Fresno County Jail

address provided by plaintiff Hill. (Doc. 14). On June 30,

2006, the Order was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as

undeliverable, and stated that plaintiff Hill is “Out of

Custody.” (Doc. 15). 

Case 1:06-cv-00128-OWW -TAG Document 16 Filed 01/10/07 Page 1 of 4
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

On February 2, 2006, plaintiff Hill filed an application to

proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). On February 24, 2006, the

Court issued an Order finding that the application was incomplete

because it was not dated, signed, or certified, and it failed to

include a prison trust account statement. (Doc. 6) In the same

Order, the Court ordered plaintiff Hill to either pay a $250

filing fee or submit a completed application to proceed in forma

pauperis along with a certified copy of his trust account

statement, within 30 days. (Doc. 6).

On February 23, 2006, plaintiff Hill resubmitted the same

application to proceed in forma pauperis; however, this time the

balance of his prison/jail trust account was certified by the

Fresno County Jail and included a copy of his trust account

statement. (Doc. 9). On February 27, 2006, the Court denied

Plaintiffs’ application to proceed in forma pauperis, noting that

it was submitted by plaintiff Hill on behalf of himself and

plaintiff Hope, and that plaintiff Hope had neither signed the

application nor provided any information regarding her financial

circumstances. (Doc. 10). To date, no new application to proceed

in forma pauperis has been filed by either plaintiff Hill or

plaintiff Hope, and neither plaintiff has paid the filing fee. 

 Pursuant to Local Rule 83-183(b), a party appearing in

propria persona is required to keep the court apprised of his or

her current address at all times. Local Rule 83-183(b) provides,

in pertinent part:

If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by

the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and

Case 1:06-cv-00128-OWW -TAG Document 16 Filed 01/10/07 Page 2 of 4
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

if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and

opposing parties within sixty (60) days thereafter of a

current address, the Court may dismiss the action

without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

In the instant case, the only address provided to the Court

on behalf of either plaintiff Hill or plaintiff Hope, is

plaintiff Hill’s address at the Fresno County Jail. More than

sixty days have passed since plaintiff Hill’s mail was returned

and he has not notified the Court of his current address.

Plaintiff Elsie Hope has not provided the Court with her current

address since the commencement of this action, and the docket

reflects no pleadings filed by her indicating that she is aware

of, or acquiesces in, her status as a party to this action. 

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of

prosecution, the Court must consider several factors: (1) the

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2)

the Court’s need to manage its 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. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.

1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988).

The Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously

resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing

the docket weigh in favor of dismissal, as this case has been

pending since February 6, 2006. The Court cannot hold this case

in abeyance indefinitely based on plaintiffs’ failure to notify

the Court of their addresses. The third factor, risk of

prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since

Case 1:06-cv-00128-OWW -TAG Document 16 Filed 01/10/07 Page 3 of 4
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 4

a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of

unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air

West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor

-- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits --

is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal

discussed herein. Finally, given the Court’s inability to

communicate with plaintiffs based on the plaintiffs’ failure to

keep the Court apprised of their current addresses, no lesser

sanction is feasible. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

dismissed for plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute. 

 These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to

the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen

(15) days after being served with these Findings and

Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the

Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendation." Any reply to the objections shall be served and

filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00128-OWW -TAG Document 16 Filed 01/10/07 Page 4 of 4