(PC) Pratt v. United State of America ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BYRON PRATT, Case No. 1:19-cv-01465-DAD-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant. 16 17 On June 21, 2021, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 24.) Plaintiff 18 failed to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion. Therefore, the Court 19 ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to 20 prosecute. (Doc. 26.) On August 26, 2021, the U.S. Postal Service returned the order to show 21 cause as undeliverable to Plaintiff. To date, Plaintiff has not updated his address with the Court or 22 responded to the order to show cause. 23 As explained in the Court’s first informational order, a party appearing pro se must keep 24 the Court advised of his current address. (Doc. 2 at 5.) Pursuant to Local Rules, if mail directed to 25 a pro se plaintiff at his address of record is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and the plaintiff 26 fails to update his address within 63 days, the Court may dismiss his action for failure to 27 prosecute. Local Rule 183(b). 28 /// 1 In addition, Local Rules provide that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . 2 any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions 3 . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power 4 to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal 5 of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 6 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court 7 order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 8 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 9 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson 10 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply 11 with local rules). 12 Although more than 63 days have passed since the U.S. Postal Service returned the 13 Court’s order to show cause, Plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of his current address. Thus, it 14 appears Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether he has done so intentionally or mistakenly is 15 inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders and Local Rules. 16 The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen to ignore. 17 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s 18 failure to prosecute. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States 19 District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date 20 of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the 21 Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 22 Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 23 waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 24 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 Dated: November 16, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28