(PC) Martinez v. James D. Hartley, et al, No. 1:2012cv00561 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS for Dismissal of Plaintiff's Action for Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/29/12. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections due within 14-days. (Verduzco, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Martinez v. James D. Hartley, et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MANUEL MARTINEZ 1:12-cv-0561-AWI-MJS (PC) Plaintiff, 11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 12 v. 13 (ECF No. 10) 14 JAMES D. HARTLEY, et al., OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 15 Defendants. / 16 17 Plaintiff Manuel Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Plaintiff initiated this action on February 21, 2012. (ECF No. 2.) On May 7, 2012, 20 the Court’s April 27, 2012 order granting Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 21 was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable to Plaintiff. Over 63 days 22 passed without Plaintiff having provided the Court with a new address or other response. 23 On July 3, 2012, the Court issued an order to show cause giving Plaintiff an 24 opportunity to update his address. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff was to respond by July 20, 25 2012. (Id.) July 20, 2012, has passed without Plaintiff complying with or otherwise 26 responding to the Court’s Order. The Court’s July 3, 2012 Order also was returned as 27 undeliverable by the U.S. Postal Service. 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to 2 keep the Court apprised of his or her current address at all times. Local Rule 183(b) 3 provides, in pertinent part: 6 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. 7 In the instant case, over 63 days have passed since Plaintiff's mail was returned, and he 8 has not notified the Court of a current address. 4 5 9 Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 10 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any 11 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the 12 inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may 13 impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. 14 Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with 15 prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, 16 or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th 17 Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 18 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 19 amendment of a complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) 20 (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court 21 apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 22 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 23 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local 24 rules). 25 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 26 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors: 27 28 -2- 1 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to 2 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 3 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 4 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; 5 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 6 In the instant case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously 7 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of 8 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of 9 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 10 in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The 11 fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly 12 outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s 13 warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies 14 the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262; 15 Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order expressly 16 stated: “Failure to meet this deadline will result in dismissal of this action.” (ECF No. 10.) 17 Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance 18 with the Court’s order. The inability to reach Plaintiff via the U.S. mail effectively deprives 19 the Court of any other and less drastic alternative. 20 21 Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order. 22 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District 23 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 24 Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, 25 any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such 26 a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 27 28 -3- 1 Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 2 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Y1 st, 3 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: ci4d6 November 29, 2012 /s/ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -4-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
