(PC) Martin v. Castillo ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JARED ANDREW MARTIN, 1:22-cv-01172-ADA-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE 13 vs. BE DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO 14 CASTILLO, et al., PROSECUTE 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 29, 2023 16 17 18 19 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Jared Andrew Martin (“Plaintiff”) is a former county jail inmate proceeding pro se and 22 in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the 23 Complaint commencing this action on September 14, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint awaits 24 the court’s requisite screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 25 II. FINDINGS 26 On June 7, 2023, the court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion to expedite this case 27 (“Order”). (ECF No. 9.) The Order was attempted to be served upon Plaintiff at his last known 28 address at the Madera County Jail in Madera, California. (Id., notice of conventional service.) 1 On June 20, 2023, the United States Postal Service returned the Order as undeliverable. (Court 2 Docket.) A notation on the envelope indicated that the mail was “Undeliverable, Not in 3 Custody.” (Id.) 4 Plaintiff has not notified the court of any change in Plaintiff’s address. Absent such 5 notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. Local Rule 182(f). Pursuant to Local 6 Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to keep the court apprised of the 7 party’s current address at all times. Local Rule 183(b) provides: 8 “A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail 9 directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the 10 Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without 11 prejudice for failure to prosecute.” 12 In this case, more than sixty-three days have passed since Plaintiff’s mail was returned, 13 and Plaintiff has not notified the court of a current address. 14 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the court must 15 consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 16 court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the respondents; (4) the public 17 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 18 alternatives. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Omstead v. Dell, 594 19 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010). The court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously 20 resolving this litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of 21 dismissal, as this case has been pending since September 14, 2022. The court cannot hold this 22 case in abeyance indefinitely based on Plaintiff’s failure to notify the court of Plaintiff’s address. 23 The third factor, risk of prejudice to respondents, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a 24 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 25 Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) 26 Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2006). The fourth factor, public 27 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor 28 of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, given the court’s inability to communicate with Plaintiff 1 based on Plaintiff’s failure to keep the court apprised of Plaintiff’s current address, no lesser 2 sanction than dismissal of the case is feasible. However, inasmuch as the dismissal being 3 considered in this case is without prejudice, the court is stopping short of issuing the harshest 4 possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice. 5 Based on this analysis, the court finds that this case should be dismissed, without 6 prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 7 III. RECOMMENDATIONS 8 Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 9 1. This case be DISMISSED without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to 10 prosecute; and 11 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 13 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 14 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 15 written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 16 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 17 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 18 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: September 8, 2023 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28