Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01269/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01269-0/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

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Reginald Edwards Gray, Jr., is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On August 26, 2016, this matter was transferred to the Fresno Division of the Eastern District 

of California from the Sacramento Division, and assigned to the undersigned. New case documents 

and court orders were then issued the same day. (ECF No. 6.) Those documents were served by mail 

on Plaintiff at his High Desert State Prison address of record. A response to this Court’s order 

requiring Plaintiff to indicate whether he consented or declined to consent to the jurisdiction of a 

United States Magistrate Judge was due on September 29, 2016. (ECF No. 6-1.) 

REGINALD EDWARDS GRAY, JR.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER KYLE,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01269-SAB (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

ASSIGN RANDOM DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:16-cv-01269-AWI-SAB Document 9 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

On September 14, 2016, the new case documents and court orders were returned by the United 

States Postal Service as “undeliverable, discharged.” As of the date of these findings and 

recommendations, Plaintiff has not provided any updated mailing address to the Court or otherwise 

responded to any of the Court’s orders. 

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 21, 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, 

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 

 

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 1:16-cv-01269-AWI-SAB Document 9 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

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, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly 

assign a United States District Judge to this action.

Furthermore, for the reasons stated above, 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: December 1, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01269-AWI-SAB Document 9 Filed 12/01/16 Page 3 of 3