(PC) Fox v. Kim ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL ALLAHRAE FOX, Case No. 1:20-cv-00290-DAD-BAK (GSA) (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE 13 v. TO OBEY A COURT ORDER, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES, 14 ERNEST ZEIGLER, AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 15 Defendant. FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 16 17 On January 12, 2022, the Court issued an order regarding pending recusal. (ECF No. 52.) 18 The Court served the notice on Plaintiff by U.S. Postal Service on the same day. On February 2, 19 2022, the U.S. Postal Service returned the order as undeliverable (not deliverable as addressed). 20 To date, Plaintiff has not updated his address with the Court. 21 As explained in the Court’s first informational order, a party appearing pro se must keep 22 the Court advised of his current address. (ECF No. 5 at ⁋⁋ VIII(A).) Under the Local Rules, if 23 mail directed to a pro se plaintiff at his address of record is returned by the U.S. Postal Service 24 and the plaintiff fails to update his address within sixty-three (63) days, the Court may dismiss 25 his action for failure to prosecute. L.R. 183(b); accord (ECF No. 5 at ⁋⁋ VIII(B)). 26 The Local Rules also provide that the “[f] ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with 27 these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any 28 and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” L.R. 1 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and in exercising that power, 2 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Hous. Auth., City of Los 3 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s 4 failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. 5 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 6 order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–31 (9th Cir. 1987) 7 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 8 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 9 Although more than sixty-three days have passed since the U.S. Postal Service returned the 10 Court’s notice, Plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of his current address. It appears that Plaintiff 11 has abandoned this action. Whether he has done so intentionally or mistakenly is inconsequential. It 12 is Plaintiff’s responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders and the Local Rules. The Court 13 declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen to ignore. 14 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED without 15 prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order, failure to comply with the Local Rules, 16 and failure to prosecute. 17 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 18 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 19 fourteen (14) days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 20 file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to 21 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within 22 the specified time may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 23 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: April 16, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28