Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00162/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00162-17/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

JAMES EDWARD ROBERTS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SOLANO,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:08-cv-00162-LJO-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A

COURT ORDER

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY

DAYS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 10, 2010, the court issued an order requiring the

parties to this action to file status reports in sixty days. The sixty day period has now expired,

and plaintiff has not filed a status report or otherwise responded to the court's order.1

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.” In determining whether to dismiss

this action for failure to comply with the directives set forth in its order, “the Court must weigh

The United States Postal Service returned the order on May 26, 2010, as undeliverable. A notation on the

1

envelope indicates that plaintiff has moved. However, plaintiff has not notified the court of any change in his

address. Absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. Local Rule 83-182(f).

1

Case 1:08-cv-00162-LJO-GSA Document 59 Filed 07/30/10 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

the following 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 defendants/respondents; (4) the

availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

“‘The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,’”

id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the

action has been pending since January 31, 2008. Plaintiff's failure to keep the Court apprised of

his current address may reflect Plaintiff's lack of interest in prosecuting his case. In such an

instance, the Court cannot continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who has not

taken steps to ensure that he will receive the Court’s mail. Thus, both the first and second factors

weigh in favor of dismissal.

Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in

and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, “delay inherently

increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” id., and it

is plaintiff's failure to notify the Court of his current address that is causing delay. Therefore, the

third factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little

available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the

Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in

forma pauperis in this action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and given the early stage

of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. However,

inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in this case is without prejudice, the Court is

stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always

weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed based on

plaintiff's failure to obey the court’s order of May 10, 2010.

2

Case 1:08-cv-00162-LJO-GSA Document 59 Filed 07/30/10 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

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 thirty days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 29, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:08-cv-00162-LJO-GSA Document 59 Filed 07/30/10 Page 3 of 3