Clifton R. Haynes Jr. v. Kathleen Allison et al, No. 5:2019cv01276 - Document 9 (C.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION by Judge Dolly M. Gee. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution based upon plaintiff's failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address. (es)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Clifton R. Haynes Jr. v. Kathleen Allison et al Doc. 9 Dockets.Justia.com 1 notify the Court within five (5) days of any address change, and that if mail directed 2 by the Clerk to his Address of Record was returned undelivered by the Post Office, 3 and if the Court was not timely notified thereafter of his current address, the Court 4 may dismiss the matter for want of prosecution. The Notice was sent to plaintiff at 5 his Address of record, has not been returned, and is presumed to have been 6 delivered to plaintiff. 7 On July 17, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued an Initial Order Re: Pro Se 8 Civil Rights Cases (“July Order”) which, among other things, advised plaintiff that, 9 “[a]s long as this action is pending, plaintiff must immediately notify the Court and 10 defense counsel if his/her address changes and promptly provide the Court with the 11 new address and its effective date.” (July Order at 2, ¶ 3). The July Order further 12 cautioned plaintiff that “[a]ny failure by plaintiff to provide the Court and 13 defendants with plaintiff’s current address, may result in a dismissal of the case for 14 want of prosecution.” (July Order at 2-3, ¶ 3) (citing Local Rule 41-6). The July 15 Order was sent to plaintiff at his Address of Record, has not been returned, and is 16 presumed to have been delivered to plaintiff. 17 On March 10, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued an order (“March Order”) in 18 which she screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A 19 and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c), identified multiple deficiencies therein, dismissed the 20 Complaint with leave to amend, and directed plaintiff, within 14 days, to either file 21 a first amended complaint which cures the pleading defects identified in the March 22 Order, a notice of dismissal, or a notice of intent to stand on Complaint. The March 23 Order was sent to plaintiff at his Address of Record. On April 16, 2020, the March 24 Order that was sent to plaintiff was returned as undeliverable, with a notation that 25 plaintiff was “not in database.” To date, plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of 26 his new/updated address. 27 As discussed below, this action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to keep 28 the Court apprised of his correct address, which amounts to a failure to prosecute. 2 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 Pursuant to Local Rule 41-6, a party proceeding pro se is required to keep 3 the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Local Rule 41-6 provides in 4 pertinent part: 5 A party proceeding pro se shall keep the Court and opposing parties 6 apprised of such party’s current address and telephone number, if any, 7 and e-mail address, if any. If mail directed by the Clerk to a pro se 8 plaintiff’s address of record is returned undelivered by the Postal 9 Service, and if, within fifteen (15) days of the service date, such 10 plaintiff fails to notify, in writing, the Court and opposing parties of 11 said plaintiff’s current address, the Court may dismiss the action with 12 or without prejudice for want of prosecution. 13 In the instant case, more than fifteen (15) days have passed since the March 14 Order was served upon plaintiff and returned undelivered by the Postal Service. 15 As noted above, to date, plaintiff has not notified the Court of his new address. 16 The Court has the inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious 17 disposition of cases by dismissing actions for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. 18 P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962). In determining 19 whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, a district court must consider 20 several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 21 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; 22 (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 23 availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th 24 Cir. 1994). Dismissal is appropriate under the foregoing analysis “where at least 25 four factors support dismissal . . . or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support 26 dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) 27 (citations omitted). 28 /// 3 1 The Court finds that the first two factors – the public’s interest in 2 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the 3 docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance 4 indefinitely based on plaintiff’s failure to notify the Court of his correct address. 5 See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal of 6 action for lack of prosecution pursuant to local rule which permitted such dismissal 7 when pro se plaintiff failed to keep court apprised of correct address; “It would be 8 absurd to require the district court to hold a case in abeyance indefinitely just 9 because it is unable, through plaintiff’s own fault, to contact the plaintiff to 10 determine if his reasons for not prosecuting his lawsuit are reasonable or not.”). 11 The third factor, risk of prejudice to the defendant, also weighs in favor of 12 dismissal since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable 13 delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th 14 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 15 their merits, is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed 16 herein. Finally, given the Court’s inability to communicate with plaintiff based on 17 his failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address, no lesser sanction is 18 feasible. See Musallam v. United States Immigration Service, 2006 WL 1071970 19 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2006). 20 III. ORDER 21 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without 22 prejudice for want of prosecution based upon plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court 23 apprised of his current address. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATED: September 16, 2020 26 ________________________________ 27 DOLLY M. GEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 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.
