(HC)Creamer v. The People of the State of California ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRUCE CREAMER, Case No. 1:22-cv-01475-NODJ-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 v. FOR PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER, FAILURE TO COMPLY 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WITH LOCAL RULES AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE CALIFONIA, 15 Respondent. 16 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Petitioner Bruce Creamer is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this proceeding for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, filed on November 15, 2022. 20 (Doc. 1). 21 On December 1, 2023, the Court issued an order temporarily reassigning the case to No 22 District Judge (“NODJ”). (Doc. 7). The Court served the order on Petitioner by U.S. Postal 23 Service on the same day. On December 11, 2023, the U.S. Postal Service returned the order as 24 “Undeliverable, Not in Custody[.]” To date, Petitioner has not updated his address with the 25 Court. 26 As explained in the Court’s first informational order, a party appearing pro se must keep 27 the Court advised of his current address. (Doc. 4 at 2). Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), “[i]f mail 28 directed to a [petitioner] in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service” 1 and if the petitioner “fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days 2 thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to 3 prosecute.” L.R. 183(b) 4 The Local Rules also provide that the “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply 5 with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all 6 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” L.R. 110. “District courts have inherent 7 power to control their dockets” and in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including 8 dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Hous. Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th 9 Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey 10 a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 11 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone 12 v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 13 court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 14 prosecute and to comply with local rules). 15 Despite the passage of more than sixty-three days since the U.S. Postal Service returned 16 the Court’s order reassigning case, Petitioner has failed to notify the Court of his current address. 17 It appears that Petitioner has abandoned this action. Whether he has done so intentionally or 18 mistakenly is inconsequential. Petitioner bears the responsibility to comply with the Court’s 19 orders and the Local Rules. 20 Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED without 21 prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to obey a court order, comply with the Local Rules, and 22 prosecute this action. 23 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 24 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 25 (14) days from the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Petitioner may file 26 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate 27 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner’s failure to file objections within the 28 specified time may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 1 | 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 2 | SO ORDERED. Dated: _ February 21, 2024 | hWravA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28