(PC) Vargas v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOMINIC VARGAS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00083-JLT-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 13 v. DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER, 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES, AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 18 Plaintiff Dominic Vargas is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action with the filing 20 of a complaint on January 16, 2020. (Doc. 1.) On September 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed a first 21 amended complaint. (Doc. 15), and on July 29, 2021, he filed the now-operative second amended 22 complaint. (“SAC,” Doc. 20.) 23 On October 6, 2022, the Court issued an order reassigning the case to the undersigned 24 magistrate judge. (Doc. 26.) The Court served the order on Plaintiff by U.S. Postal Service on 25 the same day. On October 17, 2022, the U.S. Postal Service returned the order as 26 “Undeliverable, Refused, Unable to Forward.” To date, Plaintiff has not updated his address 27 with the Court. 28 As explained in the Court’s first informational order, a party appearing pro se must keep 1 the Court advised of his current address. (Doc. 4 at 5.) Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), “[i]f mail 2 directed to a pro se plaintiff at the address of record is returned by the United States Postal 3 Service as undeliverable” and “[i]f a pro se plaintiff’s address is not updated within sixty-three 4 (63) days of mail being returned as undeliverable, the case will be dismissed for failure to 5 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 . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all 8 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” L.R. 110. “District courts have inherent 9 power to control their dockets” and in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including 10 dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Hous. Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th 11 Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey 12 a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 13 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone 14 v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 15 court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 16 prosecute and to comply with local rules). 17 Despite the passage of more than sixty-three days since the U.S. Postal Service returned 18 the Court’s order reassigning the case, Plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of his current 19 address. It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether he has done so intentionally 20 or mistakenly is inconsequential. Plaintiff bears the responsibility to comply with the Court’s 21 orders and the Local Rules. The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that 22 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, comply with the Local Rules, and prosecute 25 this action. 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 fourteen 28 (14) days from the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file 1 | written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate 2 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiffs failure to file objections within the 3 | specified time may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 4 | 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 5 | IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ December 28, 2022 | ) Ww Me 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