(PC) Vasko v. Amador County Jail ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SEAN MICHAEL VASKO, No. 2:24-cv-00162 TLN CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 AMADOR COUNTY JAIL STAFF, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 6, 2024, this Court recommended that this action be dismissed for 19 failure to prosecute based on plaintiff’s failure to notify the court of his current address. (ECF 20 No. 10.) Good cause appearing, the May 6, 2024 findings and recommendations are vacated and 21 replaced with the instant findings and recommendations. For the reasons stated herein, this Court 22 again recommends that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 23 The Court record reflects that four orders served on plaintiff’s address of record were 24 returned by the United States Postal Service. It appears that plaintiff failed to comply with Local 25 Rule 183(b), which requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any 26 address change. 27 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 28 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 1 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 2 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 3 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 4 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on 5 a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 6 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with 7 a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th 8 Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 9 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 10 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: (1) the 11 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; 12 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 13 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 14 (9th Cir. 1988). 15 Here, plaintiff failed to file a notice of change of address. The Court cannot effectively 16 manage its docket if plaintiff ceases litigating his case. In addition, this district court in particular 17 has a strong need and interest in managing its docket given the extremely high caseload in the 18 Eastern District of California. Thus, this Court finds that the first and second factors—the 19 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its 20 docket—weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor—prejudice to defendants—does not weigh 21 in favor of dismissal because defendants have not been served. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 22 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he government has not been ordered to respond to 23 Pagtalunan’s habeas petition. We have previously recognized that pendency of a lawsuit is not 24 sufficiently prejudicial in and of itself to warrant dismissal.”); Hunter v. Sandoval, 2018 WL 25 6570870 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2018) (finding no prejudice to a defendant who had not yet 26 been served). The fourth factor—availability of less drastic sanctions—favors dismissal. Mail 27 sent to plaintiff was first returned on February 28, 2024. Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change 28 of address since that time. Because plaintiff has apparently abandoned this action, less drastic 1 || sanctions are not warranted. The fifth factor—public policy favoring a disposition of actions on 2 || 1ts merits—arguably weighs against dismissal. 3 Despite the lack of prejudice to defendants and the public policy favoring disposition on 4 || the merits, this Court finds that the first, second and fourth factors discussed above weigh in favor 5 || of dismissal. Accordingly, this Court recommends dismissal of this action based on plaintiffs 6 || failure to prosecute. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the May 6, 2024 findings and 8 || recommendations are vacated; and 9 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 11 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 12 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 13 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 14 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 15 || failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 16 || Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 18 | Dated: June 11, 2024 A aA 19 Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 | Vaskol62.fr(ame) 23 | 2 24 25 26 27 28