Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01430/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01430-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY LAMONT TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. SMITH, et a.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01430-SAB-PC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE AND TO OBEY A COURT 

ORDER

RESPONSE DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1 

This action was initiated by a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed on August 10, 2015

in the Sacramento Division of this district. On September 22, 2015, this action was transferred 

to this division. On September 24, 2015, an order was entered, directing the Clerk of Court to 

categorize this case as a civil rights action and sending to Plaintiff new case documents for a 

prisoner civil rights case. On October 26, 2015, the documents were returned to the court as 

undeliverable, indicating that Plaintiff had refused to accept the documents. 

A failure to keep the court informed of Plaintiff’s address of record is an independent 

ground for dismissal. Local Rule 183 (b) requires a pro se Plaintiff to keep the court advised of 

his or her address of record. A failure to follow the Local Rules is a ground for dismissal. 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on August 24, 2015. (ECF No. 3.)

Case 1:15-cv-01430-SAB Document 11 Filed 01/19/16 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

Local Rule 183 (b) provides that “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) dates thereafter of a current 

address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” A court 

may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 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 complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1998)(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 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.

Here, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation 

and the Court’s interest in managing the 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 an action. Anderson v. Air 

West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy favoring disposition 

of cases on the merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed 

herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that a failure to obey a court order will result in 

Case 1:15-cv-01430-SAB Document 11 Filed 01/19/16 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

dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 

Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause, within thirty 

days of the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to 

prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01430-SAB Document 11 Filed 01/19/16 Page 3 of 3