Alo v. Goldsmith ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALCAPONE ALO, Case No. 1:23-cv-0536 JLT SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ACTION, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE 14 CAROLE GOLDSMITH, et al., (Doc. 9) 15 Defendants. 16 17 The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found the complaint did not state 18 a cognizable claim. (Doc. 7.) The Court served the on Plaintiff, and it notified him that he was 19 required to file an amended complaint within 30 days. (Id.) The Court further indicated: “[i]f 20 Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this order, the Court will 21 recommend to the district judge that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to obey a 22 court order, failure to prosecute, and for failure to state a claim.” (Id. at 22 (emphasis omitted).) 23 Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint and did not otherwise respond to the Court’s order or 24 file any additional documents with the Court. 25 On June 28, 2023, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to prosecute the action and 26 failed to comply with the Court’s order. Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the 27 complaint be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim, and the action be dismissed for 28 Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply. (Doc. 9.) The Court served the Findings 1 and Recommendations were the same date. On August 9, 2023, the document was returned as 2 | undeliverable. 3 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the 4 | case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the findings and 5 || recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Moreover, Local Rule 6 | 183(b) requires a plaintiff to keep the Court apprised of his current address, and provides: “if such 7 | plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a 8 | current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” 9 | Because more 63 days have elapsed since the Postal Service returned the Findings and 10 | Recommendations as undeliverable, Plaintiff also failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b) and 11 | dismissal is appropriate on for this reason as well. See e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 12 | (9th Cir. 2995) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rules); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 13 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with local 14 | rules). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 15 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 28, 2023 (Doc. 9), are 16 ADOPTED IN FULL. 17 2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for Plaintiffs failure to state a claim, 18 failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with the Court’s order. 19 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 | Dated: _ September 6, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28