Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01493/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01493-2/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 1According to the CYA, plaintiff was released from custody on or before January 3, 2005.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL BRYAN WILKINSON, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S- 02-1493 DFL GGH P

vs.

JEFF HERADA, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, formerly a ward of the California Youth Authority (CYA),1 filed an

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while he was in custody. On March 30, 2005, the district

judge, noting that plaintiff had taken no steps to notify the court of his change of address since

his release and that “[t]he record suggests that plaintiff has decided not to proceed with this

action,” ordered plaintiff , within ten days, to “advise the court...why this action should not be

dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to keep the court apprised of his current address.” 

See Order, filed on March 30, 2005, p. 2. On April 4, 2005, plaintiff filed, but did not serve, a

very belated notice of change of address stating that he had previously filed an earlier notice but

had not heard from the court in some time. There is no record of this latest change of address

Case 2:02-cv-01493-DFL-GGH Document 74 Filed 07/08/05 Page 1 of 5
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

2

 Although plaintiff put the date of February 26, 2005 on the notice, it was not received by

this court until April 4, 2005.

2

having been filed previously. A review of the record indicates that the unserved April 4, 2005

notice was not filed even in partial response to the March 30, 2005 show cause order because that

order, after having been served at the then most recent address for plaintiff which the defendants

could ascertain, was returned as undeliverable on April 7, 2005. Thereafter, the March 30, 2005

order was re-served on April 8, 2005 at the latest address of record finally filed by plaintiff on

April 4, 2005.2 No response to that order has been forthcoming from plaintiff, nor can the

unserved April 4, 2005 notice, clearly filed prior to the show cause order having been served

upon him, constitute adequate cause for his failure to keep the court apprised of his current

address and his failure to prosecute this action. 

 By order filed on April 19, 2005, plaintiff was directed, inter alia, to file proof of

service of his latest notice of change of address within ten days. Noting plaintiff’s failure to

serve the notice, the court observed the following:

Plaintiff has been involved in this litigation long enough to be

aware that every document submitted to the court for consideration

must be served on defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Moreover, he has

been previously cautioned as to the necessity to serve documents

he wishes to file. See Orders filed on March 31, 2003 and March

1, 2004. Documents not to be served electronically are usually

served by placing a copy in the U.S. mail. If an attorney has filed a

document with the court on behalf of any defendants, then

documents submitted by plaintiff must be served on that attorney

and not on the defendants. Every document submitted

conventionally to the court (e.g., by a prisoner proceeding pro se)

must include a certificate stating the date an accurate copy of the

document was mailed to defendants or their attorney and the

address to which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c). 

Plaintiff is required to file his proof of service of his notice of

address change within ten (10) days. 

In the second place, plaintiff represents in his unserved notice that

he had previously sent a notice of his latest change of address,

although there is no record of any such notice in this court’s file. 

Plaintiff has a history of failing to keep the court apprised of his

changes of address. The case file indicates that re-service of

returned documents occurred on January 9, 2003 and February 20,

Case 2:02-cv-01493-DFL-GGH Document 74 Filed 07/08/05 Page 2 of 5
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

3

2003, necessitated by his failure to inform the court in a timely

manner of a prior address change. On January 21, 2005, due to

plaintiff’s dilatoriness and repeated failure to comply with Local

Rule 83-182(f), defendants were compelled to take onerous steps in

order to file their reply to plaintiff’s opposition to their pending

summary judgment motion. See Notice of Re-service of Reply

filed on January 21, 2005. Court mail was returned again on

February 4, 2005, plaintiff having failed to keep the informed as to

his last two address changes.

Third, plaintiff’s notice has been improperly filed under yet a

different name. This litigation was filed under the name of Daniel

Bryan Wilkinson. According to N. A. Chaderjian Youth

Correctional Facility Assistant Superintendent Stephen N.

Stenoski, Daniel Wilkinson is plaintiff’s legal name. See letter

filed July 6, 2004. For no apparent reason, plaintiff began to sign

his documents under an alias, “Nathan Sage,” which unnecessarily

and improperly complicated matters for facility authorities. See, id. 

 Now, his latest filing is made under the alias of “Aaron Lee

Taggart.” Plaintiff is cautioned that the Clerk of the Court will be

directed to disregard any future filing from him that is either 1) not

properly served or 2) not filed solely under the name of Daniel

Bryan Wilkinson. 

Order, filed on April 19, 2005, pp. 1-3.

As noted, plaintiff has failed to file (and serve) any response to the show cause

order by the district judge, filed and served on March 30, 2005 and re-served on April 8, 2005 at

plaintiff’s latest address of record, nor has he responded to the April 19, 2005 order of the

undersigned. Neither of these documents have been returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff’s failure

to provide any response whatsoever demonstrates plainly his lack of interest in prosecuting this

action. 

Finally, with respect to defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment, filed

on December 3, 2005, plaintiff’s half-page opposition consists solely of a vague and unsupported

claim that his access to the courts has been limited by defendants’ policy of limiting

correspondence between CYA wards. Opposition, filed on December 28, 2004. Plaintiff made

an inadequate and half-hearted request for appointment of counsel within his opposition and

sought to have this court deny summary judgment to defendants, purportedly pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(f). Id. In this court’s order, filed on December 16, 2004, denying as moot plaintiff’s

Case 2:02-cv-01493-DFL-GGH Document 74 Filed 07/08/05 Page 3 of 5
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

4

motion for the court to enjoin defendants from limiting his communication with other wards in

order to prosecute this action, properly construed as a motion for a protective order, the following 

was noted by the undersigned:

It is apparent on the face of it that plaintiff has ultimately been

granted the relief he sought in this court by the California Youth

Authority by being allowed to correspond with each of five wards,

individuals he named after the filing of this motion. That he no

longer sought to be able to correspond with one of the three wards

at issue herein is explained by the affidavit in the court file from

this individual, setting forth grievances against certain CYA

policies. 

Order, filed on December 16, 2004, p. 8.

Plaintiff makes no showing in his putative opposition that a continuance for him

to obtain unspecified affidavits is in any way warranted in these circumstances under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56(f). Plaintiff sets forth no substantive opposition of any kind to defendants’ dispositive

motion. Further, plaintiff’s release from custody has largely mooted his claims, which are

primarily for injunctive relief. Plaintiff alleges in this action that he has been deprived of his

First Amendment right to possess and read religious literature, as well as various other

publications, and his legal notes and personal writings and that he has filed grievances with

respect to these deprivations to which no timely response has been forthcoming; plaintiff also

claims that there is a CYA policy against his Wiccan faith. Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 6-8, 9-10,

12. When an inmate seeks injunctive relief concerning an institution at which he is no longer

incarcerated, his claims for such relief become moot. See Sample v. Borg, 870 F.2d 563 (9th Cir.

1989); Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1986). See also Reimers v. Oregon,

863 F.2d 630, 632 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Plaintiff’s prolonged failure to keep this court apprised of his current address,

particularly since he has been released from CYA custody; his repeated failure to respond to

court orders properly served at his most recent address of record; his lack of any substantive

opposition to defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment all demonstrate not only a lack

Case 2:02-cv-01493-DFL-GGH Document 74 Filed 07/08/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

of compliance with court orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules, but a

total lack of interest in prosecuting this action. This court finds that this action should be

dismissed for failure to prosecute.

The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action

with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously

be doubted. [FN3] The power to invoke this sanction is necessary

in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases

and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts. 

Roadway Express, Inc., v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 765, 100 S. Ct. 2455, 2463 (1980), quoting Link

v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-630, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962); Plaut v.

Spendthrift , 514 U.S. 211, 228, 115 S. Ct. 1447, 1457 (1995)(“[t]he rules of finality, both

statutory and judge made, treat,” inter alia, dismissals “for failure to prosecute: as a judgment on

the merits.”).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 7/8/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

wilk1493.ftp

Case 2:02-cv-01493-DFL-GGH Document 74 Filed 07/08/05 Page 5 of 5