(PC) Aguilar-Rivera v. United States ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARTIN NEFTALI AGUILAR-RIVERA, Case No. 1:21-cv-00868-ADA-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 13 v. DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER, 14 UNITED STATES, et al., FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES, AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 15 Defendants. (Docs. 9, 10) 16 17 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 18 19 Plaintiff Martin Neftali Aguilar-Rivera is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in 20 forma pauperis in this civil rights action misfiled under 42 U.S.C. § 19831 and the Federal Torts 21 Claims Act (“FTCA”). On March 16, 2023, the Court issued a first screening order granting 22 Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint with respect to his FTCA claim. (Doc. 10.) The 23 Court also found that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim upon 24 which relief may be granted and recommended dismissal of the Bivens claim with prejudice. (Id. 25 at 13–14.) As directed by the findings and recommendations, the Clerk of Court assigned a 26 District Judge to this case and entered a notice reassigning case. (Doc. 9.) 27 28 1 This action should have been brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 1 On the same day, March 16, 2023, the Clerk served both documents on Plaintiff by U.S. 2 Postal Service. On April 10, 2023, the U.S. Postal Service returned the order as “Undeliverable, 3 Return to Sender, Insufficient Address, Unable to Forward.” To date, Plaintiff has not updated 4 his address with the Court. 5 As explained in the Court’s first informational order, a party appearing pro se must keep 6 the Court advised of his current address. (Doc. 2 at 5.) Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), “[i]f mail 7 directed to a pro se plaintiff at the address of record is returned by the United States Postal 8 Service as undeliverable” and “[i]f a pro se plaintiff’s address is not updated within sixty-three 9 (63) days of mail being returned as undeliverable, the case will be dismissed for failure to 10 prosecute.” L.R. 183(b). 11 The Local Rules also provide that the “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with 12 . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all 13 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” L.R. 110. “District courts have inherent 14 power to control their dockets” and in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including 15 dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Hous. Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 16 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a 17 court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th 18 Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. 19 U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 20 court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 21 prosecute and to comply with local rules). 22 Although more than sixty-three days have passed since the U.S. Postal Service returned 23 the Court’s screening order and Clerk’s notice reassigning case, Plaintiff has failed to notify the 24 Court of his current address. It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether he has 25 done so intentionally or mistakenly is inconsequential. Plaintiff bears the responsibility to comply 26 with the Court’s orders and the Local Rules. The Court declines to expend its limited resources on 27 a case that Plaintiff has chosen to ignore. 28 /// 1 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: 2 1. This case be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to obey a court order, 3 comply with the Local Rules, and prosecute this action; 4 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 5 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 6 | Judge assigned to this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen 7 | (14 days from the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file 8 | written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate 9 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff's failure to file objections within the specified 10 time may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th 11 } Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 12 | IT IS SO ORDERED. "| Dated: _ June 16, 2023 | MwrrD ha 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28