Matthews v. Alaska State Troopers ( 2024 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA KENNY RAY MATTHEWS, JR., Plaintiff, Case No. 4:24-cv-00014-SLG v. ALASKA STATE TROOPERS and THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendants. ORDER OF DISMISSAL On April 16, 2024, self-represented prisoner, Kenny Ray Matthews, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint, civil cover sheet, and an application to waive prepayments/payment of the filing fee.1 On July 1, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s case and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint. In the order, the Court provided Plaintiff with 90 days to file either a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. The Court granted Plaintiff’s application to waive the prepayment of the filing fee at Docket 3 and denied as moot Plaintiff’s motion for extended time and motion to add defendants.2 Also on July 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address at Docket 9. 1 Dockets 1–4. 2 Docket 8. On July 10, 2024, the Court issued an order reassigning the case to the undersigned judge; the order was mailed to Plaintiff at the address provided at Docket 9.3 On July 12, July 30, and August 1, 2024, the Court’s previously mailed notices regarding Dockets 5, 6, 7 and orders at Dockets 8 and 10, were each returned to the Court as undeliverable at Defendant’s updated address.4 To date, Plaintiff has not otherwise contacted the Court regarding this case. The Local Civil Rules require parties to provide current contact information to the Court and all parties.5 The Court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with a local rule6 or failure to comply with any order of the Court.7 Before dismissing a complaint for failure to comply with an order or local rule, courts in the Ninth Circuit must consider five 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) public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.8 Though not strictly 3 Docket 10, 12. 4 Dockets 11–13. 5 See Local Civil Rules 11.1(b)(2) (requiring self-represented parties must keep the court and other parties advised of the party’s current address and telephone number”) and 11.1(b)(3) (allowing the Court to dismiss a case when a self-represented party fails to update their address and any orders or other mail is returned as undeliverable). 6 Thompson v. Housing Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). 8 See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61 (first citing Thompson v. Housing Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986); and then citing Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). Case No. 4:24-cv-00014-SLG, Matthews v. Alaska State Troopers, et al. required, it is “preferred” that a court “make explicit findings in order to show that it has considered these factors.”9 Having considered these factors, this case must be dismissed. Dismissal without prejudice “minimizes prejudice to a defendant and preserves a plaintiff’s ability to seek relief.”10 The Court finds no other lesser sanction to be satisfactory or effective in this case.11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 3. The Clerk of Court shall issue a final judgment. DATED this 9th day of October 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska. /s/ Sharon L. Gleason SHARON L. GLEASON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 Id. 10 Alli v. City and County of San Francisco, 2022 WL 3099222 (N.D. Cal. 2022) (internal citations omitted). 11 See, e.g., Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424 (a district court need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives) (internal citation omitted); Gleason v. World Sav. Bank, FSB, 2013 WL 3927799, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (finding dismissal under Rule 41(b) appropriate where the court previously attempted the lesser sanction of issuing an order to show cause and giving the plaintiff an additional opportunity to re-plead). Case No. 4:24-cv-00014-SLG, Matthews v. Alaska State Troopers, et al.