Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01215/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01215-8/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

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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I. Background

Plaintiff James Henry Rodriguez is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On August 17, 2016, the Court granted Defendant Lewis’s motion to stay this action pending 

Plaintiff’s criminal prosecution. (ECF No. 28.) Defendant argued that, depending on the outcome of a 

related state criminal prosecution of Plaintiff set to go to trial this year, his claim in this matter may be 

barred by the favorable termination rule in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Thus, a stay was 

granted pending the outcome of that criminal matter, and Defendant was ordered to file a status report 

within sixty (60) days. On August 26, 2016, Defendant filed that status report, indicating that Plaintiff 

had pleaded nolo contendre to assaulting Defendant Lewis in the incident that is the subject of this 

JAMES HENRY RODRIGUEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTOPHER LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01215-LJO-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:15-cv-01215-LJO-BAM Document 31 Filed 12/01/16 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

case. (ECF No. 29.) As a result, Defendant requested that this matter be dismissed with prejudice 

according to Heck and Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007). (Id. at pp. 2-3.)

In the meantime, the Court’s August 18, 2016 order that was served by mail on Plaintiff at his 

Fresno County Jail address of record was returned by the United States Postal Service as 

“undeliverable, not in custody.” Defendant has also filed certificates of service indicating that the 

August 26, 2016 status report was served by mail on Plaintiff both at the Fresno County Jail and at his 

last known civilian address. (ECF No. 30.) As of the date of these findings and recommendations, 

Plaintiff has not provided any updated mailing address to the Court. 

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

In this case, Plaintiff’s address change was due no later than November 7, 2016. Nevertheless, 

Plaintiff has failed to file any change of address form 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) Prods. 

Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, 

 

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-01215-LJO-BAM Document 31 Filed 12/01/16 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

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). 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Court’s rules, 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, 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: November 30, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01215-LJO-BAM Document 31 Filed 12/01/16 Page 3 of 3