Trayshawn McGruder v. County of Los Angeles ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 TRAYSHAWN McGRUDER, ) Case Nos. CV 17-5408-CJC (JPR) 11 ) CV 17-7024-CJC (JPR) Plaintiff, ) CV 19-10293-CJC (JPR) 12 ) v. ) 13 ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTIONS WITH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et ) PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO 14 al., ) PROSECUTE ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 Plaintiff has three separate civil-rights actions pending in 17 this District. He has been in and out of jail since filing the 18 first one, in July 2017, and has repeatedly failed to timely 19 notify the Court of his changes of address, unnecessarily 20 delaying the resolution of various motions and the orderly 21 progression of the litigation. The Court has warned him that 22 failing to timely inform it and opposing counsel of address 23 changes may result in his lawsuits being dismissed. See, e.g., 24 McGruder v. Cnty. of L.A., No. CV 17-7024 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 25 2017), ECF No. 77. 26 On December 9, 2019, the Court attempted to serve an order 27 on Plaintiff in his latest lawsuit, but on December 26 it was 28 1 1 returned as undeliverable. McGruder v. L.A. Cnty. Health Agency, 2 No. CV 19-10293 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2019), ECF No. 7. The 3 envelope bears a stamp indicating that Plaintiff had been 4 released from his jail address of record. Id. at 10. Indeed, 5 the Court’s review of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s 6 Department’s Inmate Information Center website shows that 7 Plaintiff was released on probation on December 11, 2019. See 8 LASD Inmate Search, http://app5.lasd.org/iic/ajis_search.cfm 9 (search using Plaintiff’s first and last name) (last visited Dec. 10 30, 2019). Nearly three weeks later, he has not filed a change 11 of address in any of his cases. 12 Local Rule 41-6 provides that 13 [a] party proceeding pro se shall keep the Court . . . 14 apprised of such party’s current address . . . . If mail 15 directed by the Clerk to a pro se plaintiff’s address of 16 record is returned undelivered by the Postal Service, and 17 if, within fifteen (15) days of the service date, such 18 plaintiff fails to notify, in writing, the Court and 19 opposing parties of said plaintiff’s current address, the 20 Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice 21 for want of prosecution. 22 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (per 23 curiam), examined when it is appropriate to dismiss a plaintiff’s 24 lawsuit for failure to prosecute. See also Link v. Wabash R.R., 25 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962) (“The power to invoke [dismissal] is 26 necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of 27 pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the 28 District Courts.”). 2 1 In deciding whether to dismiss a lawsuit for failure to 2 prosecute, a court must consider “(1) the public’s interest in 3 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 4 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 5 (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 6 merits[;] and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” 7 Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440 (citation omitted). Unreasonable delay 8 creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the defendant 9 that can be overcome only with an affirmative showing of just 10 cause by the plaintiff. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th 11 Cir. 1994). 12 Here, the first, second, third, and fifth Carey factors 13 militate in favor of dismissal. In particular, by failing to 14 file a change of address, Plaintiff has rendered the Court unable 15 to communicate with him. He has not rebutted the presumption of 16 prejudice to Defendants, and no less drastic sanction is 17 available. See Scott v. Belmares, 328 F. App’x 538, 539 (9th 18 Cir. 2009) (affirming dismissal of civil-rights lawsuit in part 19 because pro se plaintiff failed to keep court apprised of change 20 of address under Local Rule 41-6). Although the fourth Carey 21 factor weighs against dismissal — as it always does — together 22 the other factors outweigh the public’s interest in disposing of 23 the case on its merits. And because Plaintiff has repeatedly 24 failed to timely file changes of address and has been warned that 25 his failure to do so could result in dismissal of his cases, 26 dismissal should be with prejudice. See Amina v. WMC Mortg. 27 Corp., 554 F. App’x 555, 555 (9th Cir. 2014) (upholding dismissal 28 of action with prejudice for failure to prosecute when plaintiffs 3 1 || “repeatedly” failed to comply with obligations in prosecuting 2 || case despite being warned that if they did not it might be 3 || dismissed). The Court has no basis to believe that if these 4] lawsuits are allowed to continue or be refiled, Plaintiff will 5 |] suddenly start complying with his obligations in prosecuting 6 || them. 7 It therefore is ORDERED that these actions are dismissed 8 || with prejudice for failure to prosecute. 9 LET JUDGMENTS BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 10 11 Ko. | Lo 12 || patep: December 30, 2019 4 CORMAC J. CARNEY. 13 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 || Presented by: 17 18 /s/ Jean P. Rosenbluth Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28