Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01993/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01993-4/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

RICHARD MAQUINALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID I. ROHRDANZ, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-01993-BAM (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Richard Maquinales (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 25, 2013. The 

matter was transferred to this Court on December 5, 2013. Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction 

of the United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 8.) 

On October 23, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint with leave to 

amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 16.) The order was returned by the United States Postal 

Service as Undeliverable, Refused on October 30, 2014. 

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

Rule 183(b) provides in relevant part: 

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. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also provides for dismissal of an action for failure to 

Case 1:13-cv-01993-BAM Document 17 Filed 01/13/15 Page 1 of 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

2

prosecute.1

More than sixty-three days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to file a notice of change of 

address and 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). 

This case has been pending since November 2013, and 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 inability to communicate with Plaintiff, there are no other 

reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. In re PPA,

460 F.3d at 1228-29; Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441.

Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s 

failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 183(b). This terminates the action in its 

entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

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 1:13-cv-01993-BAM Document 17 Filed 01/13/15 Page 2 of 2