(PC) Sanford v. Newsom ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT L. SANFORD, Case No. 1:22-cv-01100-AWI-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 v. FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER, FAILURE TO COMPLY 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., WITH THE LOCAL RULES, AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. 15 Defendants. 16 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Plaintiff Robert L. Sanford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 19 filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was removed from the Superior Court of California, 20 County of Kern on August 29, 2022. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s Third Amended 21 Complaint alleging gross negligence; failure to follow COVID protocols, and a failure to act on a 22 known dangerous condition. 23 On August 30, 2022, the Court issued a notice of temporary magistrate judge referral. 24 (Doc. 5.) The Court served the notice on Plaintiff by U.S. Postal Service on the same day. On 25 September 19, 2022, the U.S. Postal Service returned the order as undeliverable (return to 26 sender). Additionally, the order reassigning the case (Doc. 9) entered and served by mail on 27 October 6, 2022, was also returned as undeliverable as addressed. To date, Plaintiff has not 28 updated his address with the Court. 1 As explained in the Court’s first informational order, a party appearing pro se must keep 2 the Court advised of his current address. (Doc. 6 at 5.) Pursuant to the Local Rules, if mail 3 directed to a pro se plaintiff at his address of record is returned by the U.S. Postal Service and 4 the plaintiff fails to update his address within sixty-three (63) days, the Court may dismiss his 5 action for failure to prosecute. L.R. 183(b). 6 The Local Rules also provide that the “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with 7 these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any 8 and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” L.R. 9 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and in exercising that power, 10 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Hous. Auth., City of Los 11 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s 12 failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. 13 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 14 order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–31 (9th Cir. 1987) 15 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 16 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 17 Although more than sixty-three days have passed since the U.S. Postal Service returned 18 the Court’s first returned notice (Doc. 5, returned August 30, 2022), Plaintiff has failed to notify 19 the Court of his current address. It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether he 20 has done so intentionally or mistakenly is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to 21 comply with the Court’s orders and the Local Rules. The Court declines to expend its limited 22 resources on a case that Plaintiff has chosen to ignore. 23 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED without 24 prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order, failure to comply with the Local Rules, 25 and failure to prosecute. 26 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 27 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 28 fourteen (14) days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 1 | file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to 2 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff's failure to file objections within 3 | the specified time may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 4 | 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 5 | IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ December 8, 2022 | Ww VL D R~ 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28