Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05249/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05249-1/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

ROBERT ALEXANDER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

PEREZ, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

1:03-cv-05249-OWW-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(Doc. 51)

Robert Alexander (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

 On May 15, 2006, the court issued an order requiring

Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed

for failing to prosecute by keeping the Court apprised of his

current address, within twenty (20) days from the date of service

of that order. On May 30, 2006, the order served on Plaintiff

was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable. A

notation on the envelope indicated “Paroled.”

// 

Case 1:03-cv-05249-OWW -LJO Document 53 Filed 06/28/06 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

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 (9th Cir. 1986). A

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 (9th Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance

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

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). 

Case 1:03-cv-05249-OWW -LJO Document 53 Filed 06/28/06 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

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 case 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 (9th Cir. 1976). The

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

Case 1:03-cv-05249-OWW -LJO Document 53 Filed 06/28/06 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

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: June 28, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05249-OWW -LJO Document 53 Filed 06/28/06 Page 4 of 4