Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01207/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01207-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cliff Allenby
Respondent
Bruce Wayne Miller
Petitioner

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

BRUCE WAYNE MILLER, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

CLIFF ALLENBY, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01207-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO 

PROVIDE A CURRENT ADDRESS AND 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

CLERK TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 

TO CASE

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 13.) On September 14, 

2015, the Clerk’s Office mailed Plaintiff the Court’s order granting his motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 13.) On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff’s mail was returned 

as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not since provided the Court with his current address.

Local Rule 183(b) requires a party proceeding pro se to keep the Court apprised 

of his 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.” 

Further, “[d]istrict courts have inherent power to control their dockets [and] . . . 

Case 1:15-cv-01207-LJO-MJS Document 15 Filed 12/08/15 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

[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, 

default or dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 

court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute, 

failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. 

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); 

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-63 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 

comply with an order requiring amendment of a complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 

1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring 

pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 

F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); 

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424-25 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of 

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to 

obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several 

factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the [C]ourt’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 

alternatives.” Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423.

“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors 

dismissal.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Yourish v. 

California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.1999)). Here, the Court’s interest in 

managing its docket weighs in favor of dismissal because Plaintiff has failed to comply 

with the Local Rules and to prosecute the matter. The Court cannot justify continuing to 

expend its scarce resources in such circumstances. The third factor, risk of prejudice to 

Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from 

the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting this action. Anderson v. Air West, 

542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy favoring disposition 

Case 1:15-cv-01207-LJO-MJS Document 15 Filed 12/08/15 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

of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal 

discussed herein. Finally, as for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the 

proceedings there is little available which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction 

while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s 

order or otherwise notified the Court of his current address. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the action be DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, based on Plaintiff’s failure to provide a current address and 

failure to prosecute.

Plaintiff has not returned the consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction form. 

Therefore, it is ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office assign a District Court Judge to this 

case.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the United States District 

Judge who will be assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and 

Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy 

on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed 

within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that 

failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 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 7, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01207-LJO-MJS Document 15 Filed 12/08/15 Page 3 of 3