Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00768/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00768-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALTON DEAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT SHARFFENBERG, M.D., et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-00768 DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE 

TO PROSECUTE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO CLOSE CASE

Plaintiff Alton Dean, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 12, 2014. 

On January 27, 2015, the District Court issued an order dismissing the complaint with 

leave to amend. The order was returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable on 

February 23, 2015. 

Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times, and Local 

Rule 183(b) provides, “If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by 

the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within 

sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without 

prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also provides for 

Case 1:14-cv-00768-DLB Document 14 Filed 05/14/15 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

dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute.1

Plaintiff’s address change was due by May 4, 2015, but he failed to file one and he has not

otherwise been in contact with the Court. “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of 

prosecution, the district court is required to 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.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); accord Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 

(9th Cir. 2010); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 

1226 (9th Cir. 2006). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions 

that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 (citation omitted). 

This case has been pending since 2014, and the expeditious resolution of litigation and the 

Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Id. at 1227. Further, the opposing 

party is necessarily prejudiced when he is unaware of the plaintiff’s location during the discovery 

phase of the litigation. Id.

With respect to the fourth factor, “public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 

merits strongly counsels against dismissal,” but “this factor lends little support to a party whose 

responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes 

progress in that direction.” Id. at 1228.

Finally, given the Court’s and Defendant’s inability to communicate with Plaintiff, there 

are no other reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. In re PPA,

460 F.3d at 1228-29; Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441.

///

///

///

///

 

1 Courts may dismiss actions sua sponte under Rule 41(b) based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Hells Canyon 

Preservation Council v. U. S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

Case 1:14-cv-00768-DLB Document 14 Filed 05/14/15 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

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 183(b);

2) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00768-DLB Document 14 Filed 05/14/15 Page 3 of 3