Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00857/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00857-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

PATRICK D. WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00857-BAM

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

(Doc. 3)

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

I. Background

Plaintiff Patrick D. Walker (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

initiated this civil action on July 25, 2024. (Docs. 1, 2.) On July 2, 2024, having reviewed 

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), the Court required Plaintiff to 

complete an IFP application, accurately, truthfully, and completely answering all questions, and 

shall file the form by no later than August 30, 2024 or to pay the $405.00 filing fee to proceed 

with this case. (Doc. 3.) The Court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Plaintiff a form IFP 

application. (Id.) The Court’s order further noted that “No extension of time will be granted 

without a showing of good cause; and” “The failure to comply with this order may result in 

dismissal of this action, without prejudice.” (Id. at 2.) The Court’s order was returned as 

undeliverable on August 9, 2024.

Case 1:24-cv-00857-KES-BAM Document 5 Filed 12/11/24 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

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 sixty-three (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

Plaintiff’s address change was due no later than October 10, 2024. Plaintiff has failed to 

file a change of address or otherwise update 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); 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). 

Given Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Court’s orders, the expeditious resolution of 

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

third factor, risk of prejudice to the defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, as a presumption 

of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. 

Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal 

because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 

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

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

Case 1:24-cv-00857-KES-BAM Document 5 Filed 12/11/24 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

(9th Cir. 2002). However, “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,” which is the case here. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228 (citation omitted). More 

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

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

failure to apprise the Court of his current address. Id. 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.

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed based on

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

The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to randomly assign a District Judge to this 

matter.

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)(1). Within 

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

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

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 

fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 

number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 

limit may not be considered. Plaintiff is 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, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00857-KES-BAM Document 5 Filed 12/11/24 Page 3 of 3