Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00787/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00787-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

19cv787

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO LASALE HANNAH

Plaintiff,

v.

CORPORAL RAMIREZ

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv787-LAB (BLM)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On December 12, 2019, pro se Plaintiff Antonio Hannah, a prisoner, filed a 

notice of change of address. That was the last thing he filed in this case, and the 

last evidence of his taking any action to prosecute his claims. 

On January 2, 2020, Magistrate Judge Barbara Major issued her report and 

recommendation, which recommended denying Defendant Corporal Ramirez’s 

motion to dismiss. On January 24, a copy of the report and recommendation sent 

to Hannah was returned as undeliverable. Under Civil Local Rule 83.11(b), any 

party proceeding pro se must keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to 

his current address. Under that rule, if mail directed to a pro se plaintiff is returned 

by the post office, and if the plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties 

within 60 days of the plaintiff’s current address, the Court may dismiss the action 

for failure to prosecute.

Case 3:19-cv-00787-LAB-BLM Document 21 Filed 06/04/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19cv787

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

On January 28, the Court adopted the report and recommendation. A copy 

of that order was mailed to Hannah but was not returned as undeliverable. After 

several months of inaction in the case, the Court on May 7 issued an order to show 

cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Hannah 

was ordered to file a change of address no later than May 22. If he did not, the 

order cautioned him, this action would be dismissed for failure to prosecute. On 

May 22, a copy of that order mailed to Hannah was returned as undeliverable. 

Since then, Hannah has not filed anything, and it appears he has abandoned his 

claims.

The Court has considered the factors set forth in Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 

F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). Four of the five factors weigh favor of dismissal. 

Hannah has apparently abandoned his claims. Permitting this case to linger on the 

docket would serve no useful purpose, would unfairly deprive Defendants of 

finality, and would prevent the Court from managing its docket. The fifth factor —

the public policy favoring disposition of claims on the merits — does not counsel 

strongly against dismissal, because there is no way to adjudicate Hannah’s claims 

on the merits without his active participation. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. See Civil Local Rule 83.11(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2020

Honorable Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00787-LAB-BLM Document 21 Filed 06/04/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2