Ricardo Edwin Lanier v. Grant et al
Filing
13
ORDER DISMISSING CASE for Failure to Comply With Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 6/6/2011. Clerk to Close Case. (Marrujo, C)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
RICARDO EDWIN LANIER,
CASE NO.
1:10-cv-00403-GBC (PC)
9
Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER
10
v.
11
P. GRANT, et al.,
CLERK TO CLOSE CASE
12
Defendants.
13
/
14
15
Plaintiff Ricardo Edwin Lanier (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro
16
se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
17
consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on March 19, 2010. (ECF No. 4.) On February
18
18, 2011, the Court mailed Plaintiff an Order to Show Cause why his action should not be
19
dismissed for failure to exhaust. Plaintiff was given thirty days to respond. (ECF No. 12.)
20
On March 11, 2011, the Court’s Order was returned as undeliverable.
21
Pursuant to Local Rule 83-183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required
22
to keep the court apprised of his or her current address at all times. Local Rule 83-183(b)
23
provides, in pertinent part:
24
26
If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is
returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to
notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63)
days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss
the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
27
In the instant case, more than sixty-three days have passed since Plaintiff's mail was
28
returned and Plaintiff has not notified the Court of a new address.
25
1
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the Court must
2
consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2)
3
the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the
4
public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less
5
drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v.
6
King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988).
7
Given the Court’s inability to communicate with Plaintiff, dismissal is the only
8
appropriate sanction. Moreover, the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation,
9
the Court’s need to manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to Defendants in allowing
10
this case to linger greatly outweigh the policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits.
11
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the instant action be dismissed without
12
prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or obey a Court order.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated:
1j0bbc
June 6, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
