(PC) Chavez v. Gomez ( 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-01684-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 13 v. PROSECUTE 14 A. GOMEZ, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. Clerk of the Court to Assign a District Judge 16 17 On September 3, 2021, the Court issued a screening order directing Plaintiff to file a first 18 amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his pleading. (Doc. 6.) On September 15, 2021, the 19 U.S. Postal Service returned the screening order as undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff has not 20 updated his address with the Court or responded to the order. 21 As explained in the Court’s first informational order, a party appearing pro se must keep 22 the Court advised of his current address. (Doc. 3 at 5.) Pursuant to Local Rules, if mail directed to 23 a pro se plaintiff at his address of record is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and the plaintiff 24 fails to update his address within 63 days, the Court may dismiss his action for failure to 25 prosecute. Local Rule 183(b). 26 In addition, Local Rules provide that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . 27 any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions 28 . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power 1 to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal 2 of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 3 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court 4 order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 5 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 6 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson 7 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply 8 with local rules). 9 Although more than 63 days have passed since the U.S. Postal Service returned the 10 Court’s order to show cause, Plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of his current address. Thus, it 11 appears Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether he has done so intentionally or mistakenly is 12 inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with court orders and Local Rules. The 13 Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen to ignore. 14 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED without 15 prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign 16 a district judge to this action. 17 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 18 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of 19 service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the 20 Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 21 Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 22 waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 23 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: November 24, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28