Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01080/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01080-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT VILLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. GONZALEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:11-cv-01080-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

(ECF No. 29)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

I. Background

Plaintiff Robert Villa, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 30, 2011. Following screening, 

this action proceeded against Defendants Garikaparthi, Vue, Joaquin, and Shiesha for deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

 On July 11, 2014, Defendants file a motion to dismiss this action with prejudice for 

failure to prosecute, or to vacate and reset the Discovery and Scheduling Order. Plaintiff filed an 

opposition on August 29, 2014. 

On December 3, 2014, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations that Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the Court recommended that 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute be denied and 

Case 1:11-cv-01080-LJO-BAM Document 34 Filed 03/02/15 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

Defendants’ alternative motion to vacate and reset the Discovery and Scheduling Order be 

granted. The Findings and Recommendations served on Plaintiff were returned by the United 

State Postal Service as undeliverable, “Not in Custody” on December 11, 2014. 

II. Discussion

Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Local 

Rule 183(b) provides: 

Address Changes. 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 sixtythree (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the 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

According to the Court’s docket, Plaintiff’s address change was due no later than February 

20, 2015. Plaintiff has failed to file a change of address and he has not otherwise been in contact 

with the Court. “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district 

court is required to weigh 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). 

This case has been pending since 2011, and the expeditious resolution of litigation and the 

Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Id. at 1227. More importantly, 

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

 

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 1:11-cv-01080-LJO-BAM Document 34 Filed 03/02/15 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

alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and his failure to apprise 

the Court of his current address. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228-29; Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441. The 

Court will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to 

prosecute this action. Additionally, the pending Findings and Recommendations regarding 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be vacated. 

III. Conclusion, Order and Recommendation

For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations 

issued on December 3, 2014, regarding Defendants’ motion to dismiss are VACATED. Further, it 

is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 183(b). 

These Findings and Recommendations will be 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 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 

magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01080-LJO-BAM Document 34 Filed 03/02/15 Page 3 of 3