(PC) Hendrix v. Gonzales ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 LARRY HENDRIX, Case No. 1:18-cv-00066-AWI-JDP 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED FOR 11 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 12 ROSA GONZALES, et al., OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Larry Hendrix is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights 16 action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 25, 2019, the court received a 17 notification that a mailing for plaintiff had been returned as undeliverable. On April 13, 2020, 18 the court ordered that plaintiff show cause within 45 days why the case should not be 19 dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 34. Plaintiff has not responded. We thus 20 recommend that the case be dismissed. 21 As noted in the court’s previous order, plaintiff is required to keep the court apprised of 22 his current address. Local Rule 183(b) provides that “[i]f mail directed to a plaintiff in propria 23 persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify 24 the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the 25 Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Plaintiff’s address 26 change was due by February 3, 2020, but he failed to file one, and he has not otherwise been in 27 contact with the court. WwAOe 4.40°U VOYVUYYEU NT VET RAVUEOTI OY PIR es Yee ve 1 To manage our docket effectively, we impose deadlines and require litigants to meet 2 | those deadlines. When a plaintiff fails to comply with court-imposed deadlines, the court may 3 | dismiss the plaintiff's case for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon Pres. 4| Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our 5 | sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at 6 | least under certain circumstances.”). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the court has 7 | duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See 8 | Pagtalunan vy. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 9 This recommendation will be submitted to a U.S. district judge presiding over the case 10 | under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within 30 days of the service of the 11 | findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections to the findings and 12 | recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document must be 13 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding 14 | district judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. 15 | § 636(b)(1)(C). 16 7 T IS SO ORDERED. 18 ( Caan ated: _ June 16, 2020 19 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 | No. 205. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28