(PC) Davidson v. Sullivan ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RYAN P. DAVIDSON, Case No. 1:18-cv-00722-DAD-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 13 v. DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 T. CHAVEZ, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Ryan P. Davidson is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action. On May 30, 2018, the Court issued an informational order providing Plaintiff with 19 requirements to pursue this action, including the requirement to keep the Court informed of his 20 current address. (Doc. 3.) The order provided that, if mail directed to Plaintiff is returned by the 21 United States Postal Service (USPS) as undeliverable, and Plaintiff’s address is not updated 22 within 63 days, the Court will dismiss this action for failure to prosecute. (Id. at 5.) 23 On November 4, 2019, the USPS returned the Court’s Findings and Recommendations 24 (Doc. 18) as undeliverable. Although more than the allowed time passed, Plaintiff has failed to 25 update his address. Therefore, on January 14, 2020, the Court issued an order to show cause, 26 within 21 days, why this action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. (Doc. 27 19.) The USPS again returned the order as undeliverable. More than 21 days since the filing of the order to show cause have passed, and Plaintiff has not responded to the order. 1 A pro se plaintiff must keep the Court and opposing parties informed of her correct 2 address. Local Rules 182(f), 183(b). If a party moves without filing and serving a notice of 3 change of address, documents served at the party’s old address of record shall be deemed 4 received even if not actually received. Local Rule 182(f). If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff at 5 her address of record is returned by the USPS, and the plaintiff fails to notify the Court of her 6 current address within 63 days thereafter, the Court may dismiss the action for failure to 7 prosecute. Local Rule 183(b). 8 In addition, the Local Rules provide, “[f]ailure … of a party to comply with … any order 9 of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within 10 the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control 11 their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an 12 action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 13 court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, 14 or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 15 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal 16 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); 17 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and 18 to comply with local rules). 19 It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether Plaintiff has done so 20 mistakenly or intentionally is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the 21 Court’s orders and the Local Rules, which require Plaintiff to keep his address of record updated. 22 The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen to ignore. 23 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s 24 failure to prosecute. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States 25 District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 26 14 days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 27 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 1 may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Sheila K. Oberto 5 Dated: February 10, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27