Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01189/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01189-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Martin Barrett
Defendant
Omar Cabrera
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

OMAR CABRERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHARLES MARTIN BARRETT,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01189-DAD-BAM

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

I. Background

Plaintiff Omar Cabrera (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action on 

August 30, 2019. (Doc. No. 1.) On October 10, 2019, the Court issued an order granting 

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma paupers. (Doc. No. 3.) On October 29, 2019, the 

Court’s order was returned as undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of 

address or otherwise communicated with 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 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 

Case 1:19-cv-01189-DAD-BAM Document 4 Filed 01/14/20 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

prosecute.1

According to the Court’s docket, Plaintiff’s address change was due no later than 

December 31, 2019. 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) 

(internal quotation marks and 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). 

The expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh 

in favor of dismissal. In re PPA, 460 F.3d 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. Id. 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

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS 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, under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

 

1 Courts may dismiss actions sua sponte under Rule 41(b) based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Hells Canyon 

Pres. Council v. U. S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

Case 1:19-cv-01189-DAD-BAM Document 4 Filed 01/14/20 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

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 14, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01189-DAD-BAM Document 4 Filed 01/14/20 Page 3 of 3