Smith v. Chick-Fil-A ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CANDACE SMITH, Case No.: 1:24-cv-0814 JLT BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, AND 14 CHICK-FIL-A, et al., DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE 15 Defendants. (Doc. 11) 16 17 Candace Smith seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of her civil rights, 18 racketeering, and violations of state law. (See generally Doc. 1.) The assigned magistrate judge 19 screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and found Plaintiff failed to 20 state a cognizable claim under federal law. (Doc. 4 at 3-4.) The Court directed Plaintiff to file an 21 amended complaint or notify the Court if she wished to dismiss the action. (Id. at 5.) 22 After Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s order, the magistrate judge issued Findings 23 and Recommendations, reiterating the findings in the Screening Order and recommending 24 dismissal. (Doc. 6 at 7; see also id. at 3-5.) The magistrate judge also found terminating sanctions 25 were appropriate for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order, after considering the 26 factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 27 1986). (Id. at 5-6.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal “based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s order and for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may 1 be granted.” (Id. at 7.) 2 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff at the address on record 3 and notified her that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 6 at 7.) However, the U.S. 4 Postal Service returned the Findings and Recommendations as “Undeliverable, Unable to 5 Forward” on September 19, 2024. The following week, the Postal Service also returned the 6 Screening Order as “Undeliverable, Return to Sender, Unable to Forward.” To date, Plaintiff has 7 not filed a notice of change of address or communicated with the Court in any manner since the 8 filing of her complaint. 9 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 10 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 11 are supported by the record and proper analysis. Dismissal is appropriate for Plaintiff’s failure to 12 state a cognizable claim. The Court’s service of the Screening Order at the address of record is 13 deemed fully effective. See Local Rule 182(f) (“Each … pro se party is under a continuing duty 14 to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of address or telephone number of the 15 attorney or the pro se party. Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior address of the 16 attorney or pro se party shall be fully effective.”) In addition, more than 63 days have passed 17 since the Postal Service returned the Court’s mail as undeliverable, and Plaintiff failed to comply 18 with the Local Rules requiring her to keep the Court apprised of a proper mailing address. See 19 Local Rule 183(b). The reasoning set forth by the magistrate judge addressing the Henderson 20 factors also supports dismissal for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the 21 Local Rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (addressing the same 22 factors and affirming the district court’s dismissal after mail to the plaintiff was returned as 23 undeliverable and he did not provide a proper address as required by the court’s local rules). 24 Therefore, the Court ORDERS: 25 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 27, 2024 (Doc. 6) are 26 ADOPTED in full. 27 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 1 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ November 27, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28