Pratt v. Yandez ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 TOBBUSHA DURANT PRATT, Case No. 1:21-cv-01608-JLT-SKO 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 11 v. F PO ROR S P EL CA UIN TET IFF’S FAILURE TO 12 21-DAY DEADLINE 13 HERLINDA YANDEZ, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 _____________________________________/ 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff Tobbusha Durant Pratt, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint on 20 November 4, 2021, along with a “Fee Waiver Request.” (Docs. 1, 2.) On November 8, 2021, the 21 Court advised Plaintiff that the “Fee Waiver Request” does not comply with the specific 22 informational requirements for affidavits submitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and directed 23 Plaintiff to either pay the $402 filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 24 by no later than thirty days from the date of service of the Court’s order. (Doc. 3.) On December 25 22, 2021, after Plaintiff failed to timely pay the filing fee or file an IFP application, the Court issued 26 an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 27 the Court’s November 8, 2021 order and for his failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. 4.) 28 When served at Plaintiff’s address of record, the December 22, 2021 order to show cause 1 was returned as undeliverable on January 4, 2022. (See Docket.) 2 Local Rule 183(b) provides that: 3 A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria 4 persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a 5 current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 6 7 E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(b). 8 The Local Rules also provide that“[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any 9 order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within 10 the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R.110. “District courts have inherent power to control 11 their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. 12 Thompson v. Hous. Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 13 dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply 14 with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal 15 for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 16 F.2d 128, 130–31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. 17 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with 18 local rules). 19 Although more than 63 days have passed since the U.S. Postal Service returned the Court’s 20 December 22, 2021 order to show cause, Plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of his current 21 address. Apparently, Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether he has done so intentionally or 22 mistakenly is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders and 23 Local Rules. The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen 24 to ignore. 25 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice 26 for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 27 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B). Within twenty- 1 one (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file 2 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 3 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 4 the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 5 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: March 15, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28