Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00322/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00322-2/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHANE MYRON REYES,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0322 CKD P (TEMP)

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 11.)

On November 6, 2015, a court order was served on plaintiff’s address of record and 

returned by the postal service as undeliverable. It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with 

Local Rule 183(b), which requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of 

any address change. Pursuant to Rule 183(b), “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 ... 

within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action 

without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” The court’s order was returned as undeliverable on 

November 30, 2015, and Rule 183(b) required that plaintiff file a notice of current address on or 

Case 2:15-cv-00322-CKD Document 19 Filed 03/04/16 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

before February 1, 2016. To date, plaintiff has not filed this notice or otherwise proceeded in this 

action.

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 

or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” “District courts have inherent power to 

control their dockets [and] . . . [i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions 

including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 

831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to 

prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. 

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-63 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 

requiring amendment of a complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) 

(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 

address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure 

to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424-25 (9th Cir. 1986) 

(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court 

order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: “(1) the 

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the [C]ourt’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 alternatives.” Thompson, 782 F.2d at 

831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423.

In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 

court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of 

prejudice to defendants, does not weigh for or against dismissal since no defendant has yet been 

served. 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, as for the availability of 

lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute a 

Case 2:15-cv-00322-CKD Document 19 Filed 03/04/16 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

satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce court resources. Plaintiff has not paid the 

filing fee for this action and is likely unable to pay, making monetary sanctions of little use.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. All pending motions are vacated; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to 

comply with local rules. 

Dated: March 3, 2016

mb

/reye0322.33a

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00322-CKD Document 19 Filed 03/04/16 Page 3 of 3