Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01949/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01949-0/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

SEAN R. ROBERTS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

H.M. LACKNER, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01949-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 

PROVIDE A CURRENT ADDRESS AND 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants removed the action to this court on 

December 3, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) On December 8, 2014, the Clerk’s Office mailed 

Plaintiff the Court’s First Informational Order and an Order Regarding Consent or 

Request for Reassignment. (ECF No. 5.) On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff’s mail was 

returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not provided the Court with his current address.

Local Rule 183(b) requires a party proceeding pro se to keep the Court apprised 

of his 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.” 

Further, District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “in 

Case 1:14-cv-01949-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 03/05/15 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

the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate 

default or dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 

court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a 

court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 

53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 

requiring amendment of a complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 

1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep 

court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 

1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 

F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply 

with local rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to 

obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must 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 

alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 

833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

In the instant case, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 

and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The third 

factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting 

this action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor –

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the 

factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, as for the availability of lesser 

sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available which would constitute 

a satisfactory lesser sanction while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not 

Case 1:14-cv-01949-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 03/05/15 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

responded to the Court’s order or otherwise appeared in the action following removal. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the action be DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, based on Plaintiff’s failure to provide a current address and 

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)(1). Within 

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

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 

(14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 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 4, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01949-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 03/05/15 Page 3 of 3