Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01051/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01051-8/pdf.json

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

---

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

MARIO DULANEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JERRY DYER, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-01051-DAD-BAM

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

I. Background

Plaintiff Mario Dulaney, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 3, 2014. (Doc. 1.) 

On October 13, 2015, the Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff’s second amended 

complaint and granting Plaintiff leave to amend within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 21.) On October 

27, 2015, the Court’s order was returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable, 

unable to forward. 

On December 4, 2015, due to the appointment of Judge Dale A. Drozd to the position of 

United States District Judge, this action was reassigned from District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill to 

District Judge Dale A. Drozd for all further proceedings. (Doc. 22.) On December 30, 2015, the 

Court’s reassignment order was returned by the United States Postal Service as Undeliverable 

(Inactive). 

Case 1:14-cv-01051-DAD-BAM Document 23 Filed 01/11/16 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

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 January 

4, 2016. 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) (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 failure to respond to this Court’s orders and the delay in this action, 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 

 

1 Courts may dismiss actions sua sponte under Rule 41(b) based on a 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 1:14-cv-01051-DAD-BAM Document 23 Filed 01/11/16 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

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: January 8, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01051-DAD-BAM Document 23 Filed 01/11/16 Page 3 of 3