Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01357/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01357-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRAIG McCARTER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01357-MJS (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO PROVIDE A CURRENT 

ADDRESS AND FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendants Biol, 

Wofford, and Zamora. All parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction for all 

purposes. (ECF Nos. 34 & 37.) 

The action was initiated in the United States District Court for the Central District 

of California. (ECF No. 1.) On April 25, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss,

based in part on improper venue. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff filed a motion to change venue 

(ECF No. 27), and requested an extension of time to respond to the motion (ECF No. 

28). Thereafter, the action was transferred to this Court. (ECF No. 30.) 

Plaintiff again filed a motion for change of venue (ECF No. 35), which was denied 

as moot on October 26, 2014 (ECF No. 38). Plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition to 

Case 1:14-cv-01357-MJS Document 39 Filed 01/13/15 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

Defendants’ motion to dismiss within thirty days. (Id.)

On November 5, 2014, the Court’s order denying the motion for change of venue 

and requiring Plaintiff to file an opposition was returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has 

not filed an opposition or provided the Court with his current address.

Local Rule 183(b) requires a party proceeding pro se to keep the Court apprised 

of his 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 sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court 

may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” 

Further, 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, 

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 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 Service, 833 

F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); 

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (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 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, 

Case 1:14-cv-01357-MJS Document 39 Filed 01/13/15 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

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

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, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting 

this 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, as for the availability of lesser 

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

a 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.

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s orders or provided a current address.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, based on Plaintiff’s 

failure to provide a current address and failure to prosecute, and 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate any and all pending motions and 

CLOSE the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01357-MJS Document 39 Filed 01/13/15 Page 3 of 3