Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05315/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05315-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT ALAN LETSINGER, 1:04-cv-05315-OWW-SMS-P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION

vs.

[Doc. 9] 

FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPT., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, Robert Alan Letsinger (“plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

By order filed June 6, 2005, the court found that plaintiff’s complaint failed to state any claims

for relief against the named defendants. The court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and ordered plaintiff

to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of service of that order. On June 13,

2005, the United States Postal Service returned the order as undeliverable. A notation on the envelope

indicated: Return to Sender - Out of Custody. 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. To date,

plaintiff has not notified the court of his address change or otherwise been in contact with the court.

Absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. See Local Rule 83-182(f).

//

Case 1:04-cv-05315-OWW -SMS Document 11 Filed 07/15/05 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

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local

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

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

their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate

. . . dismissal of a case.” 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 an action, 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, 1260-61 (9th Cir.

1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 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 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.

1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th

Cir. 1986)(dismissal for failure to 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 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 alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24;

Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 

In the instant case, 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. The third factor,

risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises

from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 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, a court’s warning

to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of

alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson,

779 F.2d at 1424. The court’s order of June 6, 2005, expressly stated: “Plaintiff’s failure to file an

Case 1:04-cv-05315-OWW -SMS Document 11 Filed 07/15/05 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

Amended Complaint in compliance with this order will result in a Recommendation that the action be

dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Thus,

plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from non-compliance with the court’s order.

Further, given the court’s inability to communicate with plaintiff based on plaintiff’s failure to keep the

court apprised of his current address, no lesser sanction is feasible.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED, without

prejudice, based on plaintiff's failure to obey the court’s order of June 6, 2005, and for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted.

These Findings and Recommendations 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 twenty (20) days after

being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the

court. Such a 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

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: July 14, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05315-OWW -SMS Document 11 Filed 07/15/05 Page 3 of 3