Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05183/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05183-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT J. SAUCEDO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

1:03-cv-05183-AWI-DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(Docs. 20 & 22)

Plaintiff, Vincent J. Saucedo, is/was a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

 On April 10, 2006, the court issued an order granting

plaintiff thirty (30) days within which to either advise the

court of his wish to proceed only on his ADA claim OR file an

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the

Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the

Local Rules of Practice. On April 17, 2006, the United States

Postal Service returned the order served on plaintiff. A notion

on the envelope indicated: Name & CDC Number Do Not Match. 

Case 1:03-cv-05183-AWI -DLB Document 24 Filed 07/28/06 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

Therefore, court staff telephoned the CDC Locator Service to

verify plaintiff’s CDC number, and was advised that plaintiff’s

CDC number was, in fact, correct, and that plaintiff has been

paroled.

Further, on June 2, 2006, the court issued an order

reassigning this action to Judge Anthony W. Ishii (AWI) for all

further proceedings in the place and instead of Judge Robert E.

Coyle (REC), thereby changing the case number initials as

captioned above. On June 13, 2006, the United States Postal

Service once again returned the order served on plaintiff. 

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).

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 (9 Cir. 1986). A th

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 (9 Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance th

Case 1:03-cv-05183-AWI -DLB Document 24 Filed 07/28/06 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

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 (9 Cir. 1988)(dismissal for failure to comply with th

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 as this action has been pending since 2003. 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 (9 Cir. 1976). The th

Case 1:03-cv-05183-AWI -DLB Document 24 Filed 07/28/06 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

fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of

dismissal discussed herein.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

DISMISSED for plaintiff's failure to prosecute.

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 eleven

(11) 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 28, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNI j8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05183-AWI -DLB Document 24 Filed 07/28/06 Page 4 of 4