(PC) Saragoza v. John Doe No. 1 ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENITO JOSE SARAGOZA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00355-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JOHN DOE NO. 1, et al., REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE 15 Defendants. TO OBEY A COURT ORDER 16 (ECF No. 13) 17 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 18 19 I. Background 20 Plaintiff Benito Jose Saragoza (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se 21 and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 22 On June 28, 2023, the Court screened the complaint and granted Plaintiff leave to file an 23 amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims 24 identified within thirty days. (ECF No. 13.) The order was served on Plaintiff at his then-current 25 address of record at California State Prison, Lancaster. On July 12, 2023, the Court’s order was 26 returned as “Undeliverable, Inmate Discharged/Inactive.” 27 Pursuant to a notice filed in another pending case, on August 8, 2023, Plaintiff’s mailing 28 address was updated to a residential address in Los Angeles. (ECF No. 14.) The Court’s 1 screening order was re-served to the new address the same date. The deadline for Plaintiff to 2 respond was extended accordingly. On August 21, 2023, the Court’s order was again returned, as 3 “Undeliverable, Not Deliverable as Addressed.” 4 The extended deadline for Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s order has now expired, and 5 Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address or otherwise communicated with the Court. 6 II. Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Obey a Court Order 7 A. Legal Standard 8 Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Local 9 Rule 183(b) provides: 10 Address Changes. A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and 11 opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and 12 if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without 13 prejudice for failure to prosecute. 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also provides for dismissal of an action for failure to 15 prosecute.1 16 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 17 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 18 within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their 19 dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 20 appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 21 court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 22 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 23 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 24 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 25 amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 1987) 26 (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 27 1 Courts may dismiss actions sua sponte under Rule 41(b) based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Hells Canyon 28 Pres. Council v. U. S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). 1 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: 2 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 3 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 4 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 5 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 6 B. Discussion 7 Here, Plaintiff’s address change was due no later than October 24, 2023, and Plaintiff’s 8 response to the Court’s June 28, 2023 order is also overdue. Plaintiff has failed to comply with 9 the Court’s order or otherwise communicate with the Court. The Court cannot effectively 10 manage its docket if Plaintiff ceases litigating his case. Thus, the Court finds that both the first 11 and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 12 The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 13 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 14 Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs against 15 dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 16 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose 17 responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes 18 progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products 19 Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 20 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in 21 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; 22 Malone, 833 at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s June 28, 2023 order expressly 23 warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in a 24 recommendation of dismissal of this action, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order 25 and for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 13, p. 7.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that 26 dismissal could result from his noncompliance. 27 Additionally, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the Court that 28 would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further 1 unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this 2 action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is 3 likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased litigating his case and updating his address. 4 More importantly, given the Court’s apparent inability to communicate with Plaintiff, there are no 5 other reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and his 6 failure to apprise the Court of his current address. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228–29; Carey, 856 7 F.2d at 1441. 8 III. Order and Recommendation 9 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a 10 district judge to this action. 11 Furthermore, the Court finds that dismissal is the appropriate sanction and HEREBY 12 RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a Court 13 order and for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 183(b). 14 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 15 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 16 (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 17 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 18 Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 19 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 20 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 21 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: November 7, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28