Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00650/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00650-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Seavon Pierce
Plaintiff
Unknown
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEAVON PIERCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-00650 LJO DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

TEN-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

Plaintiff Seavon Pierce, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 12, 2014. 

On April 29, 2015, the Court issued an order granting in forma pauperis status. The order 

was returned on May 18, 2015, as undeliverable. On July 1, 2015, the Court issued a second order 

directing Plaintiff to file a consent or decline form. The order was returned as undeliverable on 

July 17, 2015. 

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 

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

Case 1:15-cv-00650-DAD-DLB Document 18 Filed 08/03/15 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

dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute.1

Plaintiff’s address change was due by July 27, 2015, 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 2014, and the expeditious resolution of litigation and the 

Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Id. at 1227. In addition, “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.

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).

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 ten

(10) 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 

 

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-00650-DAD-DLB Document 18 Filed 08/03/15 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

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: August 3, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00650-DAD-DLB Document 18 Filed 08/03/15 Page 3 of 3