(PC) Christman v. Boudreaux ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PASCHAL A. CHRISTMAN JR., Case No. 1:23-cv-0605 JLT EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 13 v. DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK 14 MIKE BOUDREAUX, et al., OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 15 Defendants. (Doc. 18) 16 17 Paschal A. Christman Jr. initiated this action by filing a complaint for violations of his 18 civil rights, identifying several incidents and conditions he experienced in various detention 19 facilities between 2022 and 2023. (See generally Doc. 1.) The assigned magistrate judge 20 screened the compliant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found he failed to state a 21 cognizable claim. (Doc. 9.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend, but Plaintiff failed to file 22 an amended complaint. 23 The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to prosecute the action and failed to comply 24 with the Court’s orders. (Doc. 18 at 2.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the action 25 be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 26 (Id. at 3.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff at the only address 27 on record, and informed him that any objections were due within 14 days. (Id. at 4.) However, 28 the USPS returned the Findings and Recommendations as “Undeliverable, Not deliverable as □□□ nee en nn nn EE NEE ED 1 | addressed” on December 8, 2023. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a Notice of Change of Address 2 | or otherwise communicated with the Court. 3 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 4 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 5 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Moreover, Plaintiff failed to comply with Local 6 | Rule 183(b) which requires him to keep the Court informed of a proper mailing address. 7 | Specifically, the Rule provides: “If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is 8 || returned by the U.S. Postal service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing 9 | parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the 10 | action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Because the Findings and Recommendations 11 | were returned on December 8, 2023, a notice of change of address was due February 9, 2024. 12 | Dismissal is also appropriate for Plaintiff's failure to comply with Local Rule 183(b). See e.g., 13 | Henderson vy. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and 14 | failure to comply with local rules). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 15 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 28, 2023 (Doc. 18) are 16 ADOPTED in full. 17 2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to 18 comply with Court’s orders.! 19 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. >) | Dated: _ February 22, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 | 1 «rwyhen (1) a district court dismisses a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim, (2) the court grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an amended complaint, the dismissal counts as a strike under § 27 1915(g).” Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017); see also O’Neal y. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1156 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal for failure to state a claim and another ground counts as a strike when it is clear from the 28 | court’s reasoning that it considers failure to state a claim to be a fully sufficient condition to dismiss the action).