Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01264/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01264-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

Plaintiff Jason Pellum, Sr., initiated this action by filing a complaint on August 7, 2015, alleging 

violations of his civil rights, and that his parole officer acted in violation of the United States 

Constitution. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Local Rules and the Court is unable to 

communicate with Plaintiff, the Court recommends the matter be DISMISSED without prejudice.

I. Background

The Court issued new case documents on August 17, 2015, which were returned to the Court on 

August 31, 2015, as undeliverable with the notation “not in custody”. Similarly, the Court issued an 

order granting Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which was returned with the notation 

“Return to Sender, Attempted Not Known, Unable to Forward.” To date, Plaintiff’s forwarding 

address remains unknown, because he has not filed a “Notice of Change of Address” with the Court.

///

JASON E. PELLUM, SR.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS 

AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01264-AWI-JLT

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

Case 1:15-cv-01264-AWI-JLT Document 10 Filed 11/05/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

II. Requirements of the Local Rules 

Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required 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.” LR 183(b). Because more than 63 days have passed since the new 

case documents were returned as undeliverable, he has failed to comply with the Local Rules.

III. Discussion and Analysis

“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a 

court may impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 

Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a 

party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 

46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 2995) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rules); Henderson v. 

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with 

local rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the 

Local Rules, or failure to obey a court order, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(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.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831.

In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 

Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 

191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always 

favors dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (recognizing that district 

courts have inherent interest in managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant 

litigants). Judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseload in the nation, and 

this Court cannot, and will not hold, this action in abeyance based upon Plaintiff’s failure to notify the 

Case 1:15-cv-01264-AWI-JLT Document 10 Filed 11/05/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Court of a change in address. Further, the policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits is 

outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal. No lesser sanction is feasible given the Court’s 

inability to communicate with Plaintiff.

IV. Findings and Recommendations

Plaintiff has failed to follow the requirements of the Local Rules, which require him to provide 

a current mailing address to the Court. As set forth above, the factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit 

weigh in favor of dismissal of the matter. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED:

1. This action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this action.

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)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen 

days after the date of service, 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); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 

834 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01264-AWI-JLT Document 10 Filed 11/05/15 Page 3 of 3