Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00193/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00193-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR LEE DIXON,

Plaintiff,

v.

VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00193-DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Arthur Lee Dixon (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 

civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 

On February 5, 2015, the Court issued new case documents to Plaintiff. On March 2, 2015, 

the documents were returned by the United States Postal Services as “Undeliverable, Names & CDC 

Do Not Match.” On February 6, 2015, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to submit an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the filing fee. On March 2, 2015, the order was 

returned by the United States Postal Service as “Undeliverable, Inactive.” 

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 action without 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on January 28, 2015.

Case 1:15-cv-00193-DLB Document 13 Filed 05/13/15 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

prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also provides for dismissal 

of an action for failure to prosecute.2

Plaintiff’s address change was due by May 4, 2015, but he failed to file one 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 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). 

This case has been pending since January 2015, and the expeditious resolution of litigation 

and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Id. at 1227. Further, the 

opposing party is necessarily prejudiced when he is unaware of the plaintiff’s location during the 

discovery phase of the litigation. 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.

///

///

///

///

 

2 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-00193-DLB Document 13 Filed 05/13/15 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

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to 

prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 183(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00193-DLB Document 13 Filed 05/13/15 Page 3 of 3