Peterson v. Bakersfield Police Department et al, No. 1:2014cv01114 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER Directing The Clerk Of Court To Assign A United States District Judge To The Action, FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS Dimissing The Action Without Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/30/2015. This case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; the new case number is 1:14-cv-01114-LJO-JLT. F&R's referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill;Objections to F&R due by 10/19/2015. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIN LYNN PETERSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPT., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:14-cv-01114-----JLT ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE TO THE ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff Erin Lynn Peterson initiated this action by filing a complaint on July 14, 2014, alleging 18 violations of his civil rights by officers of the Bakersfield Police Department. Because Plaintiff has 19 failed to comply with the Local Rules and failed to prosecute this action, the Court recommends the 20 matter be DISMISSED without prejudice. 21 I. Background The Court issued its “New Case Documents” on July 1, 2015, which were returned to the Court 22 23 as undeliverable with the notation “Unable to I.D. - Prison Number Required.” The Clerk’s Office 24 updated Plaintiff’s address to include his identification number on July 15, 2015, and re-served the 25 New Case Documents. The documents were again returned as undeliverable on July 27, 2015, because 26 Plaintiff had been paroled. To date, Plaintiff’s forwarding address remains unknown, and he has not 27 filed a “Notice of Change of Address” with the Court. 28 /// 1 1 II. Requirements of the Local Rules Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to keep the 2 3 Court apprised of his current address: “If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is 4 returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties 5 within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without 6 prejudice for failure to prosecute.” LR 183(b). Because more than 63 days have passed since the 7 document was returned as undeliverable and he has not notified the Court of her current address, he 8 has failed to comply with the Local Rules. 9 III. Discussion and Analysis 10 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a 11 court may impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 12 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a 13 party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local 14 rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 2995) (dismissal for failure to comply 15 with local rules); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 16 comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 17 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 18 In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the 19 Local Rules, or failure to obey a court order, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(1) 20 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 21 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 22 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also 23 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831. 24 In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the 25 Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 26 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always 27 favors dismissal”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in 28 managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). Judges in the Eastern 2 1 District of California carry the heaviest caseload in the nation, and this Court cannot, and will not 2 hold, this action in abeyance based upon Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or notify the Court of a change 3 in address. Further, the policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits is outweighed by the 4 factors in favor of dismissal. No lesser sanction is feasible given the Court’s inability to communicate 5 with Plaintiff. 6 IV. Order Good cause appearing IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to 7 8 assign a United States District Judge to this action. 9 V. 10 Findings and Recommendations Plaintiff has failed to follow the requirements of the Local Rules or to prosecute this action. 11 As set forth above, the factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit weigh in favor of dismissal of the matter. 12 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS: 13 1. This action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and 14 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this action. 15 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 17 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen 18 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 19 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 20 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 21 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); 22 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014). 23 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 30, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.