(PC) Miramontes v. Meyers ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL MIRAMONTES, Case No. 1:23-cv-00204-ADA-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE1 14 OFFICER MEYERS, FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 This matter comes before the Court upon periodic review. As more fully set forth below, 19 the undersigned recommends the district court dismiss this case without prejudice due to 20 Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action by keeping the Court apprised of a current address. 21 I. FACTS AND BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff Paul Miramontes, a state prisoner, commenced this action by filing a pro se civil 23 rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Kern County Superior Court on October 18, 2022. 24 (Doc. No. 1 at 7). On February 10, 2023, Defendant removed the case to this Court. (Id. at 1). 25 On February 13, 2023, the undersigned issued Prisoner New Case Documents to Plaintiff. (Doc. 26 No. 3.). On February 27, 2023, the Court’s February 13, 2023 mailing was returned as 27 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 28 (E.D. Ca. 2019). 1 “undeliverable.” (See docket). Under this Court’s Local Rules, Plaintiff’s change of address was 2 due no later than May 1, 2023. Local Rule 183(b). That time period has expired and Plaintiff has 3 not filed an updated address as required by Local Rule 182(f). (See docket). 4 II. APPLICABLE LAW 5 This Court’s Local Rules require litigants to keep the court apprised of their current 6 address and permits dismissal when the litigant fails to comply. Specifically: 7 “[a] party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail 8 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 Court 9 and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice 10 for failure to prosecute.” 11 E.D. Cal. Loc. R. 183(b) (2019); see also Local Rule 182(f) (all parties are “under a continuing 12 duty” to notify the clerk of “any change of address.”). Precedent supports a dismissal of a case 13 when a litigant does not keep the court appraised on his address. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 14 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming lower court and finding no abuse of discretion when district court 15 dismissed case without prejudice after pro se plaintiff did not comply with local rule requiring pro 16 se plaintiffs keep court apprised of addresses at all times); Hanley v. Opinski, 2018 WL 3388510 17 (E.D. Cal. July 10, 2018) (dismissing action for failure to prosecute and failure to provide court 18 with current address). 19 Alternatively, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits courts to involuntarily 20 dismiss an action when a litigant does not prosecute an action or does not comply with a court 21 order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 22 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 23 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that 24 courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”). Local 25 Rule 110 similarly permits courts to impose sanctions on a party who fails to comply with a court 26 order. Further, the procedural rules that govern this Court are to be “construed, administered and 27 employed by the court . . . to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every 28 action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 1 Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but it “is incumbent upon the Court to manage its 2 docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 3 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). Before dismissing an action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, the court 4 must consider: (1) the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 5 manage a docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendant; (4) public policy favoring disposition on 6 the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See Applied Underwriters, 913 F.3d 7 at 889 (noting that these five factors “must” be analyzed before a Rule 41 involuntarily 8 dismissal) (emphasis added); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 9 (reviewing five factors and independently reviewing the record because district court did not 10 make finding as to each); but see Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 11 2000) (listing the same, but noting the court need not make explicit findings as to each) (emphasis 12 added); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal of pro se § 13 1983 action when plaintiff did not amend caption to remove “et al” as the court directed and 14 reiterating that an explicit finding of each factor is not required by the district court). 15 III. ANALYSIS 16 The undersigned considers the above-stated factors and concludes they favor dismissal of 17 this case. The expeditious resolution of litigation is deemed to be in the public interest. Yourish 18 v. California Amplifier, 191 F.2d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 1999). Turning to the second factor, the 19 Court’s need to efficiently manage its docket cannot be overstated. This Court has “one of the 20 heaviest caseloads in the nation,” and due to unfilled judicial vacancies, which is further 21 exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, operates under a declared judicial emergency. See 22 Amended Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in the Eastern District of 23 California. The Court’s time is better spent on its other matters than needlessly consumed 24 managing a case with a recalcitrant litigant. Indeed, “trial courts do not have time to waste on 25 multiple failures by aspiring litigants to follow the rules and requirements of our courts.” 26 Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 644 (Trott, J., concurring in affirmance of district court’s involuntary 27 dismissal with prejudice of habeas petition where petitioner failed to timely respond to court 28 order and noting “the weight of the docket-managing factor depends upon the size and load of the 1 | docket, and those in the best position to know what that is are our beleaguered trial judges.”). 2 | Delays have the inevitable and inherent risk that evidence will become stale or witnesses’ 3 || memories will fade or be unavailable and can prejudice a defendant, thereby satisfying the third 4 | factor. See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968). Further, the instant dismissal is a 5 | dismissal without prejudice, which is a lesser sanction than a dismissal with prejudice, thereby 6 | addressing the fifth factor. 7 A case cannot linger indefinitely on this Court’s already overburdened docket. A 8 | dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s Local Rules 9 | is in accord with Ninth Circuit precedent. More than 63 days have passed since mail was 10 | returned as undeliverable and Plaintiff has not updated his mailing address or otherwise contacted 11 | the Court and Local Rule 183(b) expressly permits dismissal in this circumstance. 12 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: 13 This case be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiffs failure to prosecute this action 14 | under Local Rule 183(b). 15 NOTICE TO PARTIES 16 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 17 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 18 | days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written 19 | objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 20 | Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 21 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 22 | 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 23 ** | Dated: _ May 8, 2023 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 5 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28