(PC)Alanis v. Copenhaver et al, No. 1:2013cv00808 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending Dismissal of This Action, Without Prejudice, for Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 6/23/14: 30-Day Deadline for Objections. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARTIN SANCHEZ ALANIS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. Case No. 1:13-cv-00808-AWI-DLB PC FINDINGD AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE COPENHAVER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Martin Sanchez Alanis (“Plaintiff”) is or was a state prisoner proceeding pro se 17 and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 27, 18 2014, the Court received a returned order that was issued on March 17, 2014. The sixty-three 19 (63) day period for notice of change of address has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a 20 notice of change of address or otherwise notified the Court. 21 Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to keep the 22 Court apprised of his or her current address at all times. Plaintiff was advised of this rule in the 23 Court’s First Informational Order. (ECF No. 3 ¶ 11.) Local Rule 183(b) provides, in pertinent 24 part: 25 26 27 28 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 sixtythree (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 1 1 In the instant case, more than sixty-three days have passed since Plaintiff’s mail was returned, and 2 he has not notified the Court of a current address. 3 4 “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is required to consider several factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 5 6 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) 7 the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 8 drastic sanctions.’” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Henderson v. 9 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). These factors guide a court in deciding what to 10 11 do, and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Lit., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation 12 13 omitted). In this instance, Local Rule 183(b) provides for the dismissal of an action based on 14 15 returned mail. Given the Court’s inability to communicate with Plaintiff, dismissal is warranted 16 and there are no other reasonable alternatives available. See Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441. 17 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 18 1. 19 This action is dismissed, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute; and 20 2. 21 The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 22 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty 23 (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file 24 25 26 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 27 /// 28 2 1 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 Dated: /s/ Dennis June 23, 2014 L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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 3

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.