(PC) Chavez v. Gustaveson ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MOISES CHAVEZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-01441-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 13 v. PROSECUTE 14 STEVEN GUSTAVESON, (Doc. 7) 15 Defendant. 16 17 On May 21, 2021, after discovering that Plaintiff failed to update his address in the related 18 case, Chavez v. Gustaveson, 1:20-cv-1441-NONE-JLT, this Court entered an order requiring 19 Plaintiff to show cause, within fourteen days, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to 20 prosecute. The Court cautioned: “Failure to comply with this Order will result in a 21 recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and failure to 22 prosecute.” 23 On June 2, 2021, the U.S. Postal Service returned the order as undeliverable. As explained 24 in the Court’s first informational order, a party appearing pro se must keep the Court advised of 25 his current address. (Doc. 3 at 5.) Pursuant to the Local Rule 183(b), if mail directed to a pro se 26 plaintiff at his address of record is returned by the U.S. Postal Service and the plaintiff fails to 27 update his address within 63 days, the Court may dismiss his action for failure to prosecute. L.R. 28 183(b). 1 The Local Rules also provide that the “[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 3 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” L.R. 110. “District courts have inherent 4 power to control their dockets” and in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including 5 dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Hous. Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 6 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a 7 court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th 8 Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. 9 U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 10 court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 11 prosecute and to comply 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. It 14 appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether he has done so intentionally or 15 mistakenly is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders and 16 the Local Rules. The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has 17 chosen to ignore. 18 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED without 19 prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, failure to comply with a court order, and failure to 20 comply with the Local Rules. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to assign a district judge to 21 this action. 22 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 23 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 24 of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 25 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 26 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time 27 /// 28 /// 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 5 Dated: August 8, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF 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 28