Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00015/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00015-1/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

ANTHONY WAYNE SHEWARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

JANEANE WEBER, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-00015-AWI-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

I. Background

Plaintiff Anthony Wayne Sheward, a county jail inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 30, 2014. Plaintiff also filed an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) 

On January 8, 2015, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to submit his consent or 

decline to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge within thirty days. (ECF No. 3.) The following 

day, on January 9, 2015, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a completed 

application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing in fee in full within forty-five days. 

(ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff did not respond to either order in a timely manner or otherwise contact the 

Court.

On March 6, 2015, the Court issued a second order directing Plaintiff to submit his consent 

or decline to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge within thirty days. (ECF No. 5.) The Court’s 

Case 1:15-cv-00015-AWI-BAM Document 7 Filed 05/20/15 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

second order regarding consent or decline to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, which was directed to 

the Plaintiff by the Clerk, was returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable, not in 

custody on March 6, 2015.

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 May 14, 

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). 

Given Plaintiff’s repeated 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. More importantly, given the Court’s apparent inability to communicate with Plaintiff, 

 

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 1:15-cv-00015-AWI-BAM Document 7 Filed 05/20/15 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

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. 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. 

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

For the reasons stated, 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, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the Court. The 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 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: May 19, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00015-AWI-BAM Document 7 Filed 05/20/15 Page 3 of 3