(PC) Moore v. Eaton ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHAVIEON LEWIS MOORE, Case No. 1:21-cv-00892-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 v. FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 14 PATRICK EATON, et al., LOCAL RULES, AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 15 Defendants. 16 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 17 Clerk of Court to assign district judge. 18 19 Plaintiff Chavieon Lewis Moore is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action 21 with the filing of a complaint on June 4, 2021. (Doc. 1.) 22 On October 6, 2022, the Court issued an order reassigning the case to the undersigned 23 magistrate judge. (Doc. 7.) The Court served the order on Plaintiff by U.S. Postal Service on the 24 same day. On October 18, 2022, the U.S. Postal Service returned the order as “Undeliverable, 25 Return to Sender, Discharged, Not Deliverable as Addressed; Unable to Forward.” To date, 26 Plaintiff has not updated his address with the Court. 27 As explained in the Court’s first informational order, a party appearing pro se must keep 28 the Court advised of his current address. (Doc. 3 at 5.) Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), “[i]f mail 1 directed to a pro se plaintiff at the address of record is returned by the United States Postal 2 Service as undeliverable” and “[i]f a pro se plaintiff’s address is not updated within sixty-three 3 (63) days of mail being returned as undeliverable, the case will be dismissed for failure to 4 prosecute.” L.R. 183(b). 5 The Local Rules also provide that the “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with 6 . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all 7 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” L.R. 110. “District courts have inherent 8 power to control their dockets” and in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including 9 dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Hous. Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th 10 Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey 11 a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 12 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone 13 v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 14 court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 15 prosecute and to comply with local rules). 16 Despite the passage of more than sixty-three days since the U.S. Postal Service returned 17 the Court’s order reassigning case, Plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of his current address. 18 It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this action. Whether he has done so intentionally or 19 mistakenly is inconsequential. Plaintiff bears the responsibility to comply with the Court’s orders 20 and the Local Rules. The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff 21 has chosen to ignore. 22 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED without 23 prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order, comply with the Local Rules, and prosecute 24 this action. 25 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 26 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 27 (14) days from the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file 28 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate 1 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff's failure to file objections within the 2 | specified time may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 3 | 839 (Oth Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 4 The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case. 5 | IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ December 28, 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