(PC) Morris v. Modhaddam ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CONDALEE MORRIS, No. 2: 18-cv-2850 MCE KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 G. MODHADDAM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this 19 action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute. 20 On July 28, 2020, mail served on plaintiff was returned unserved and marked “refused.” 21 On August 4, 2020, mail served on plaintiff was returned unserved and marked “refused.” 22 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of 23 that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate ... dismissal” of a case. 24 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court 25 may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute an action, failure to 26 obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 27 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 28 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of wAIe 6. INIS LING RAVI Vo PI Oe POY ee 1 | complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to 2 | comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 3 | US. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court 4 | order); Henderson y. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of 5 | prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 6 The return of the mail addressed to plaintiff marked “refused” suggests that plaintiff is no 7 | longer interested in litigating this action. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this 8 | action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute. Plaintiff is informed that the 9 | undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice if he fails to respond 10 | to this order. 11 In an abundance of caution, the undersigned also directs the Clerk of the Court to serve 12 | this order on the Litigation Coordinator at California State Prison-Corcoran (“Corcoran”). The 13 || undersigned anticipates that the Litigation Coordinator will determine that the mail addressed to 14 | plaintiff and returned marked “refused” was properly returned to the court, or will speak to 15 | plaintiff if that is not the case. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall show cause why this action 18 should not be dismissed without prejudice for his failure to prosecute; the undersigned 19 will recommend dismissal of this action if plaintiff fails to respond to this order; 20 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order on the Litigation Coordinator at 21 Corcoran so that the Litigation Coordinator may determine that the mail addressed to 22 plaintiff and returned marked “refused” was properly returned to the court. 23 | Dated: August 14, 2020 24 Fens Arn 25 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 Morr2850.osc 28