Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01917/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01917-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE GALVAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIMMS, et al., 

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-1917 AWI DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO KEEP COURT APPRISED 

OF CURRENT ADDRESS

Plaintiff Jose Fidencio Galvan (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate at the Fresno County Jail 

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed this action on December 28, 2015. 

On March 7, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it with leave to 

amend. 

After Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within the required time frame, the 

Court issued an order to show cause on April 29, 2016. On May 5, 2016, the order was returned 

by the United States Postal Service with the notation, “Undeliverable (not in custody).”

Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times, and 

Local Rule 183(b) provides, “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 

Case 1:15-cv-01917-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 07/26/16 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

2

action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also 

provides for dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute.1

Plaintiff’s address change was due by July 14, 2016, but he failed to file one and he has 

not otherwise been in contact with the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d); Local Rule 183(b). “In 

determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is required to 

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 sanctions.” 

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted); accord Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010); In re 

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). 

These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be met in 

order for a court to take action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 (citation omitted). 

The expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh 

in favor of dismissal. Id. at 1227. Further, an opposing party is necessarily prejudiced by the 

aging of a case left to idle indefinitely as a result of the plaintiff’s disinterest in either moving 

forward or taking action to dismiss the case. Id.

With respect to the fourth factor, “public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 

merits strongly counsels against dismissal,” but “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.” Id. at 1228.

Finally, given the Court’s inability to communicate with Plaintiff, there are no other 

reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 

1228-29; Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441.

///

///

 

1 Courts may dismiss actions sua sponte under Rule 41(b) based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Hells Canyon 

Preservation Council v. U. S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

Case 1:15-cv-01917-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 07/26/16 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

3

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DISMISSES this action, without prejudice, based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute by keeping the Court apprised of his current address and for failure 

to obey the Local Rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 183(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01917-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 07/26/16 Page 3 of 3