(PC) Henderson v. CDCR ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOMMY B. HENDERSON, JR., No. 2:23-cv-0726 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATON, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks relief 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 20, 2023, the Court referred this case to the Post- 20 Screening ADR Project and stayed the case for 120 days. (ECF No. 16.) On January 16, 2024, 21 plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned as undeliverable. On April 18, 2024, defendants filed 22 an answer. 23 As discussed below, the ADR stay is lifted, and plaintiff is granted fourteen days to 24 inform the court of his current address. 25 Standards 26 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 27 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 28 within the inherent power of the Court.” Id. District courts have the inherent power to control 1 their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 2 appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 3 court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 4 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 5 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 6 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order 7 requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130-33 (9th Cir. 8 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 9 Further, Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: 10 Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to 11 dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any 12 dismissal not under this rule--except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19--operates as 13 an adjudication on the merits. 14 Id. 15 Discussion 16 As noted above, plaintiff’s copy of the Court’s last order was returned as undeliverable. 17 Despite such return, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the 18 Court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of 19 documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. In addition, the CDCR Inmate 20 Locator website, http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/default.aspx (accessed June 6, 2024), 21 reflects that plaintiff is no longer in state custody. 22 Therefore, plaintiff is granted fourteen days to notify the court of his current address. 23 Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this 24 action. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. The ADR stay (ECF No. 16) is lifted; and 27 2. Plaintiff is granted fourteen days from the date of this order to notify the court of his 28 current address. Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action. 1 2 || Dated: June 7, 2024 Chm Spo CHI S00 KIM 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 || /1mend0726.0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28