Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01293/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01293-1/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

JOHN WESTLAKE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

1:05-cv-01293-REC-DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(Doc. 4)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

 On October 13, 2005, the court issued and served new

prisoner case documents on plaintiff. On October 24, 2005, the

documents served on plaintiff were returned by the U.S. Postal

Service as undeliverable. A notation on the envelopes indicated:

Return to Sender - Moved Left No Address - Unable to Forward.

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).

Case 1:05-cv-01293-LJO -DLB Document 5 Filed 12/05/05 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

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

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

Case 1:05-cv-01293-LJO -DLB Document 5 Filed 12/05/05 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

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. 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. th

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 based on 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 twenty

(20) 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. 

Case 1:05-cv-01293-LJO -DLB Document 5 Filed 12/05/05 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

Dated: December 2, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNI j8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01293-LJO -DLB Document 5 Filed 12/05/05 Page 4 of 4