Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00586/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00586-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CANDACE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

WEST COAST HOTEL MANAGEMENT 

LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00586-KES-HBK

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE UNDER LOCAL 

RULES 183, 110 and/or FEDERAL RULE OF 

CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(b)

(Doc. No. 1)

14-DAY DEADLINE

 

Plaintiff Candace Smith initiated this action by filing a pro se civil rights complaint on 

May 16, 2024. (Doc. No. 1, “Complaint”). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned 

recommends that the District Court dismiss this action consistent with the Court’s Local Rules for 

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Specifically, 

Plaintiff failed to keep the Court apprised of a current address, failed to respond to the Court’s 

screening order, and this action remains stagnant.

BACKGROUND

On July 1, 2024, the undersigned issued an order recalling the Findings and 

Recommendations issued June 21, 2024, and granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma 

Case 1:24-cv-00586-KES-HBK Document 8 Filed 11/08/24 Page 1 of 6
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

pauperis. (Doc. No. 6). On August 14, 2024, the Court issued a Screening Order finding the 

complaint failed to state a claim. (Doc. No. 7). The Court afforded pro se Plaintiff the 

opportunity to correct the identified deficiencies and file an amended complaint no later than 

September 9, 2024. (Id. at 5). On September 3, 2024, the July 1, 2024 Order was returned 

“Undeliverable, Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward.” See

docket. Plaintiff’s change of address was due no later than November 5, 2024. Local Rule 

183(b). Plaintiff has not filed an updated address as required by Local Rule 182(f) and the time to 

do so has expired. See docket. Further, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint as directed 

by the Court in its August 14, 2024 Screening Order.1

APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS

1. Local Rule 183

Plaintiff was obligated to keep this Court informed of her proper address. Specifically: 

[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. 

Local Rule 183(b); see also Local Rule 182(f) (all parties are “under a continuing duty” to notify 

the clerk of “any change of address[.]”). Precedent supports a dismissal of a case when a litigant

does not keep the court appraised on his address. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) 

(affirming lower court and finding no abuse of discretion when district court dismissed case 

without prejudice after pro se plaintiff did not comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs 

keep court apprised of addresses at all times); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th 

Cir. 1986) (dismissal proper for failure to prosecute and comply with local rules of court); Hanley 

v. Opinski, 2018 WL 3388510 (E.D. Ca. July 10, 2018) (dismissing action for failure to prosecute 

and to provide court with current address); Davis v. Kern Valley State Prison, 2023 WL 2992980, 

at *1, n. 1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2023). More than sixty-three (63) days have passed since the 

1

Inexplicably, the later issued August 14, 2024 Screening Order was not returned as undeliverable. (See

docket). 

Case 1:24-cv-00586-KES-HBK Document 8 Filed 11/08/24 Page 2 of 6
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

Court’s July 1, 2024 Order was returned as undeliverable, and Plaintiff has not filed a notice of 

change of address.2

2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 110

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the court to involuntarily dismiss an action 

when a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with other Rules or with a court 

order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 

(9th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). Similarly, this Court’s Local Rules, which correspond with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply 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.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. “District courts have inherent power 

to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal 

of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 

A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court 

order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 

1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. 

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 

prosecute and to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court 

must consider 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 the defendants; 

(4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 

drastic sanctions. Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423; Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 

1988).

After considering each of the above-stated factors, the undersigned concludes dismissal 

without prejudice is warranted in this case. As to the first factor, the expeditious resolution of 

litigation is deemed to be in the public interest, satisfying the first factor. Yourish v. California 

2 As of the date of these Findings and Recommendations sixty-five (65) days have passed since the mail 

was returned as undeliverable. 

Case 1:24-cv-00586-KES-HBK Document 8 Filed 11/08/24 Page 3 of 6
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

Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Turning to the second factor, this Court’s need to efficiently manage its docket cannot be 

overstated. This Court has “one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation,” and due to the delay in 

filling judicial vacancies, which was further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, operates

under a declared judicial emergency. See Amended Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial 

Emergency in the Eastern District of California. This Court’s time is better spent on its other 

matters than needlessly consumed managing a case with a recalcitrant litigant. The Court cannot 

effectively manage its docket when a litigant ceases to litigate his/her case or respond to a court 

order. Thus, the Court finds that the second factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 

Delays inevitably have the inherent risk that evidence will become stale or witnesses’

memories will fade or be unavailable and can prejudice a defendant, thereby satisfying the third 

factor. See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968). Thus, the third factor—risk of prejudice 

to defendant—weighs in favor of dismissal since a presumption of injury arises from the 

unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 

1976). Because Plaintiff’s inaction amounts to an unreasonable delay in prosecuting this action, 

the third factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors the

disposition of cases 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 Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 

1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Indeed, “trial courts do not have time to waste on 

multiple failures by aspiring litigants to follow the rules and requirements of our courts.” 

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 644 (9th Cir. 2002) (Trott, J., concurring in affirmance of 

district court’s involuntary dismissal with prejudice of habeas petition where petitioner failed to 

timely respond to court order and noting “the weight of the docket-managing factor depends upon 

the size and load of the docket, and those in the best position to know what that is are our 

beleaguered trial judges.”). Further, as set forth in the August 14, 2024 Screening Order, the 

Case 1:24-cv-00586-KES-HBK Document 8 Filed 11/08/24 Page 4 of 6
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

5

Court already determined that the Complaint was not meritorious, so this factor does not weigh in 

favor of the Plaintiff.

Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 

dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s August 14, 2024 

Screening Order expressly warned Plaintiff that her failure to comply with the Court’s order 

would result in a recommendation for dismissal of this action. (Doc. 7 at 6-7, ¶2). Thus, Plaintiff 

had adequate warning that dismissal could result from her noncompliance. And the instant 

dismissal is a dismissal without prejudice, which is a lesser sanction than a dismissal with 

prejudice, thereby satisfying the fifth factor. 

After considering the factors set forth supra and binding case law, the undersigned 

alternatively recommends dismissal, without prejudice, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Local 

Rule 110.

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:

This case be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 183(b) and/or Local Rule 

110 and Federal Rule Civil Procedure 41(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action.

NOTICE TO PARTIES

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

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 

after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 

objections with the Court. Id.; Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed fifteen 

(15) pages. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party 

wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its 

CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with 

specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by 

the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the 

Case 1:24-cv-00586-KES-HBK Document 8 Filed 11/08/24 Page 5 of 6
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

6

waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).

Dated: November 7, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00586-KES-HBK Document 8 Filed 11/08/24 Page 6 of 6