(HC) Cross v. Rill ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JEROME LEE CROSS, Case No. 1:18-cv-00821-NONE-JDP 10 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED FOR 11 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 12 RICK RILL, OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 13 Respondent. 14 15 Petitioner Jerome Lee Cross, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas 16 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 2, 2020, the court received a notification that a 17 mailing for petitioner had been returned as undeliverable. On May 15, 2020, the court ordered 18 that petitioner show cause within 30 days why the case should not be dismissed for failure to 19 prosecute. ECF No. 21. Plaintiff has not responded. We thus recommend that the case be 20 dismissed. 21 Petitioner is required to keep the court apprised of his current address. Local Rule 22 183(b) provides that “[i]f mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is 23 returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing 24 parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the 25 action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Petitioner’s address change was due by May 26 4, 2020, but he failed to file one, and he has not otherwise been in contact with the court. 27 To manage our docket effectively, we impose deadlines and require litigants to meet wOoOe UV LINN INE VET MMVIII oe PC ete OY ove 1 | those deadlines. When a litigant fails to comply with court-imposed deadlines, the court may 2 | dismiss the plaintiffs case for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon Pres. 3 | Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our 4 | sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at 5 | least under certain circumstances.”). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the court has 6 | duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See 7 | Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 8 This recommendation will be submitted to a U.S. district judge presiding over the case 9 | under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within 30 days of the service of the 10 | findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections to the findings and 11 | recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document must be 12 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding 13 | district judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. 14] § 636(b)(1)(C). 15 16 T IS SO ORDERED. 17 ( Caan ated: _ June 24, 2020 18 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 | No. 205. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28