Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01284/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01284-0/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

VAUGHN S. EARLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN N. KATAVICH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01284-LJO-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Findings and Recommendations

I. Background

Plaintiff Vaughn S. Earley (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on 

August 21, 2015. (ECF No. 1.)

On September 22, 2016, this Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to either file an 

amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on his cognizable 

claims within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 8.) On October 3, 2016, the screening order was returned 

by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable, vacant.

II. Discussion

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

Case 1:15-cv-01284-LJO-BAM Document 9 Filed 12/20/16 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

Rule 183(b) provides:

Address Changes. A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and 

opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. 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 sixtythree (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 dismissal of an action for failure to 

prosecute.1

According to the Court’s docket, Plaintiff’s address change was due no later than 

December 12, 2016. Plaintiff has failed to file a change of address 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 weigh 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). 

Given Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Court’s orders, the expeditious resolution of 

litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Id. at 1227. More 

importantly, given the Court’s apparent inability to communicate with Plaintiff, there are no other 

reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and his 

failure to apprise the Court of his current address. Id. at 1228-29; Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441. The 

Court will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to 

prosecute this action.

 

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 1:15-cv-01284-LJO-BAM Document 9 Filed 12/20/16 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

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

For the reasons stated, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, 

without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 

183(b). 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

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

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 

findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01284-LJO-BAM Document 9 Filed 12/20/16 Page 3 of 3