Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01271/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01271-4/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

PINA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-01271-KES-GSA (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE 

TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS

Doc. 17

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking 

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Plaintiff initiated this action on August 24, 2023, while he was still incarcerated. Doc. 1. 

He was granted in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status on August 28, 2023. Doc. 7. Thereafter, he filed 

four notices of change of address indicating he was no longer in custody. Docs. 8–11. The 

magistrate judge directed the Clerk of Court to send Plaintiff the IFP application appropriate for 

non-prisoners. Doc. 12. Plaintiff filled out this second IFP application and the Court granted the 

motion. Docs. 13, 14. The Court’s order was mailed to Plaintiff’s address of record on June 6, 

2024, but the mailing was later returned as “Undeliverable, Insufficient Address.” See docket.

On September 3, 2024, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause why the matter should 

not be dismissed for failure to keep his address current. Doc. 15. As before, the mailing was 

Case 1:23-cv-01271-KES-GSA Document 18 Filed 12/20/24 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

returned as “Undeliverable, Unclaimed.” See docket. On September 30, 2024, the magistrate 

judge issued findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of the action for Plaintiff’s 

failure to keep his address updated. Doc. 17. The findings and recommendations were served on 

Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 

days of service. Id. at 2. The findings and recommendations were later returned to the Court as 

“Undeliverable, Unclaimed,” and Plaintiff has not otherwise provided an updated address or 

communicated with the Court. See docket.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review. Having 

carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes the findings are supported by the record. 

However, in recommending dismissal, the magistrate judge did not address the factors identified 

by the Ninth Circuit in Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986). That analysis 

should be conducted when recommending dismissal of an action. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 

F.3d 639, 641 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, the Court makes additional findings to determine whether 

dismissal is warranted.

The Court weighs the following 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 defendants; 

(4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy of favoring disposition of 

cases on their merits.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992). The first 

factor is met as “[t]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors 

dismissal.” Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). Next, the Court’s 

management of its docket is negatively impacted by a litigant’s failure to follow the court’s 

orders. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261. Thus, the second factor also favors dismissal.

The third factor also favors dismissal. While “[l]imited delays and the prejudice to a 

defendant from the pendency of a lawsuit are realities of the system that have to be accepted,” 

courts also relate the “risk of prejudice to the plaintiff’s reason for defaulting.” Yourish, 191 F.3d 

at 991 (citations omitted). A rebuttable presumption of prejudice arises when a plaintiff 

unreasonably delays prosecution of an action. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452–53 (9th Cir. 1994) 

(citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff has not offered any excuse for his failure to comply with the 

Case 1:23-cv-01271-KES-GSA Document 18 Filed 12/20/24 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

Court’s orders.

The fourth factor—the availability of less drastic sanctions—also weighs in favor of 

dismissal. Despite the Court’s attempts to obtain a response, Plaintiff appears to have abandoned 

this action. “The district court need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally 

dismissing a case but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson, 779 F.2d 

at 1424. The fifth factor ordinarily weighs against dismissal, as public policy favors deciding 

cases on the merits. However, it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to move litigation toward disposition 

at a reasonable pace and to avoid dilatory tactics. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley, 942 F.2d 648, 

652 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court for nearly a year and has 

failed to update his address, and the case cannot proceed on the merits in the absence of 

Plaintiff’s participation.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued September 30, 2024 (Doc. 17), are 

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to file a notice of current 

address with the Court, and

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01271-KES-GSA Document 18 Filed 12/20/24 Page 3 of 3