Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01407/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01407-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

Anthony Wiley, Sr. asserts the defendants are liable for a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, 

hate crime against a disabled American, judicial misconduct, judicial corruption, and RICO violation. 

(See generally Doc. 1) Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Local Rules and failed to 

prosecute this action, the Court recommends the matter be DISMISSED.

I. Background

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on October 7, 2019. (Doc. 1) The Court 

noted that the same date as Plaintiff filed the instant action, he filed a different complaint against 

Robert Goodman, the Bakersfield Police Department, and the Kern County Superior Court, initiating 

Case No. 1:19-cv-001406-AWI-JLT. The Court reviewed the complaints in both actions and found the 

parties in the two actions are the same, the facts alleged are similar, the claims to do not significantly 

differ, and the relief requested was the same. Therefore, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this 

action should not be dismissed as duplicative. (Doc. 4)

ANOTHONY WILEY, SR.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT GOODMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-1407-LJO JLT

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

Case 1:19-cv-01407-LJO-JLT Document 4 Filed 01/07/20 Page 1 of 4
2

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

On October 31, 2019, the Court’s order was returned as “Undeliverable, Not Deliverable as 

Addressed” by the United States Postal Service. On November 1, 2019, the Court attempted re-service 

at a different address for Plaintiff, based upon his address identified in Case No. 1:19-cv-01406-AWIJLT. However, this was also returned as “Undeliverable, Attempted- Not Known” by the United States 

Postal Service.” To date, Plaintiff’s correct address remains unknown, and he has not identified a 

proper mailing address for the Court.

II. Requirements of the Local Rules 

Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required 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.” LR 183(b). Because more than 63 days have passed since the first 

document was returned as undeliverable on October 31, 2019, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the 

Local Rules.

III. Failure to Prosecute

“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a 

court may impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 

Angeles, 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 or 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. 2995) (dismissal for failure to comply 

with local rules); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 

comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the 

Local Rules, or failure to obey a court order, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(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.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also

Case 1:19-cv-01407-LJO-JLT Document 4 Filed 01/07/20 Page 2 of 4
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

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831.

IV. Discussion and Analysis

To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with 

the Local Rules, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(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.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 

1260-61; Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831.

A. Public interest and the Court’s docket

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

Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 

191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always 

favors dismissal”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in 

managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). This Court cannot, and will 

not hold, this case in abeyance based upon Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules and 

failure to take action to continue prosecution in a timely manner. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley & 

Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining a plaintiff has the burden “to move toward... 

disposition at a reasonable pace, and to refrain from dilatory and evasive tactics”). Accordingly, these 

factors weigh in favor of dismissal of the action.

B. Prejudice to Defendants

To determine whether the defendants have been prejudiced, the Court must “examine whether 

the plaintiff’s actions impair the ... ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the rightful decision 

of the case.” Malone, 833 F.2d at 131 (citing Rubin v. Belo Broadcasting Corp., 769 F.2d 611, 618 

(9th Cir. 1985)). Significantly, a presumption of prejudiced arises when a plaintiff unreasonably delays

the prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). 

Plaintiff has not taken any action to prosecute the action following the filing of the complaint

and has not communicated a proper mailing address to the Court. Accordingly, this factor weighs in 

favor of dismissal.

Case 1:19-cv-01407-LJO-JLT Document 4 Filed 01/07/20 Page 3 of 4
4

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

C. Consideration of less drastic sanctions

The Court “abuses its discretion if it imposes a sanction of dismissal without first considering 

the impact of the sanction and the adequacy of less drastic sanctions.” United States v. Nat’l Medical 

Enterprises, Inc., 792 F.2d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). However, no lesser sanction is feasible given the 

Court’s inability to communicate with Plaintiff.

D. Public policy

Given Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules and prosecute the action, the policy 

favoring disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. See 

Malone, 833 F.2d at 133, n.2 (explaining that although “the public policy favoring disposition of cases 

on their merits . . . weighs against dismissal, it is not sufficient to outweigh the other four factors”).

V. Findings and Recommendations

Plaintiff has failed to follow the requirements of the Local Rules or to prosecute this action. 

As set forth above, the factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit weigh in favor of dismissal of the matter. 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS:

1. This action be DISMISSED; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this action.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen 

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections 

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” The parties are 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); 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01407-LJO-JLT Document 4 Filed 01/07/20 Page 4 of 4