Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00589/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00589-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

CANDACE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00589-KES-BAM

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(Doc. 3)

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

I. Background

Plaintiff Candace Smith (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated 

this civil action on May 16, 2024. (Doc. 1.) On July 2, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s 

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and granted her leave to amend within thirty (30) 

days. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff failed to file a timely amended complaint in compliance with the 

Court’s order. Accordingly, on August 13, 2024, the Court issued findings and recommendations 

that recommended this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s order, 

for lack of jurisdiction, and for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be 

granted. (Doc. 6.) Both the July 2, 2024 screening order (Doc. 4) and the findings and 

recommendations (Doc. 6) were returned as undeliverable on September 3, 2024.

///

Case 1:24-cv-00589-KES-BAM Document 7 Filed 11/13/24 Page 1 of 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

2

II. Discussion

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

Rule 183(b) provides:

Address Changes. A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and 

opposing parties advised as to his or her 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. 

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

prosecute.1

Plaintiff’s address change was due no later than November 5, 2024. Plaintiff has failed to 

file a change of address or otherwise update the Court. The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a 

separate action on October 28, 2024, in the matter of Candace Smith v. Jimmy Carlise, et al., No. 

1:24-cv-01317-BAM, which utilized a different address.

2

 Yet, like the instant action, the Court’s 

most recent order in that action was returned as undeliverable on November 8, 2024. See Smith v. 

Carlise, No. 1:24-cv-01317-BAM. 

“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); 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). 

Given Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Court’s orders, the expeditious resolution of 

1 Courts may dismiss actions sua sponte under Rule 41(b) based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Hells Canyon 

Pres. Council v. U. S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

2 A court may take judicial notice of its own records. United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) 

(“[A] court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases.”).

Case 1:24-cv-00589-KES-BAM Document 7 Filed 11/13/24 Page 2 of 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

3

litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Id. at 1227. The 

third factor, risk of prejudice to the defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, as 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 usually weighs against dismissal 

because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 

(9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to 

move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that 

direction,” which is the case here. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228 (citation omitted). More 

importantly, given the Court’s apparent inability to communicate with Plaintiff, there are no other 

reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and her 

failure to apprise the Court of her current address. Id. at 1228–29; Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441. The 

Court will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to 

prosecute this action.

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations issued 

on August 13, 2024, are VACATED. (Doc. 6.) Furthermore, the Court HEREBY 

RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 183(b).

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 

fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 

number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 

limit may not be considered. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 

///

///

Case 1:24-cv-00589-KES-BAM Document 7 Filed 11/13/24 Page 3 of 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

4

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 

findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 

v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00589-KES-BAM Document 7 Filed 11/13/24 Page 4 of 4