Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01767/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01767-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Albert Heinicke
Plaintiff
Medical Services
Defendant

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT HEINICKE,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEDICAL SERVICES, 

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01767 LJO DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Albert Heinicke (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate in the custody of the Kern County 

Sheriff’s Department. He is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed on November 23, 2015. 

On February 29, 2016, the Court issued a screening order dismissing the complaint with 

leave to amend. On March 9, 2016, the order was returned by the United States Post Office with a 

notation, “Undeliverable (Not in Custody).”

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times, and Local 

Rule 183(b) provides, “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 

///

Case 1:15-cv-01767-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 05/20/16 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

prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also provides for dismissal 

of an action for failure to prosecute.1

Plaintiff’s address change was due by May 16, 2016, but he failed to file one 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 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 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). 

This case has been pending since November 23, 2015, and the expeditious resolution of 

litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Id. at 1227. 

Further, an opposing party is necessarily prejudiced by the aging of a case left to idle indefinitely as 

a result of the plaintiff’s disinterest in either moving forward or taking action to dismiss the case. Id. 

With respect to the fourth factor, “public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits 

strongly counsels against dismissal,” but “this factor lends little support to a party whose 

responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes 

progress in that direction.” Id. at 1228.

Finally, given the Court’s inability to communicate with Plaintiff, there are no other 

reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 

1228-29; Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS DISMISSAL of this action, without 

prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 183(b).

///

 

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 1:15-cv-01767-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 05/20/16 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

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 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01767-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 05/20/16 Page 3 of 3