(PC) Ricks v. Davis, No. 1:2018cv01022 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Action, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/2/19. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT K. RICKS, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. C. DAVIS, 1:18-cv-01022-DAD-SKO (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS ACTION 14-DAY DEADLINE Defendant 16 17 18 FINDINGS Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action. On August 12, 2019, the United States Postal Service (USPS) returned as undeliverable 20 the Court’s order setting a settlement conference, (Doc. 15). On September 11, 2019, the USPS 21 again returned the Court’s order continuing the settlement conference, (Doc. 17). As a result, the 22 Court issued an order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure 23 to prosecute, and provided Plaintiff 21 days to respond. (Doc. 18). More than the allowed time 24 has passed, and Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s order. 25 As stated in the Court’s First Informational Order, (Doc. 3), a pro se plaintiff must keep 26 the Court and opposing parties informed of her correct address. Local Rules 182(f), 183(b). If a 27 party moves without filing and serving a notice of change of address, documents served at the 28 party’s old address of record shall be deemed received even if not actually received. Local Rule 1 182(f). If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff at the address of record is returned by the USPS, and 2 the plaintiff fails to notify the Court of her current address within 63 days thereafter, the Court 3 may dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Local Rule 183(b). 4 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide that 5 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with … any order of the Court may be grounds for 6 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.” 7 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and, in exercising 8 that power, they may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing 9 Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action 10 based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. 11 See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 12 comply with a court order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 13 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); 14 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and 15 to comply with local rules). 16 Plaintiff appears to have abandoned this action. Whether Plaintiff has done so mistakenly 17 or intentionally after being released from custody is inconsequential. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility 18 to comply with the Court’s orders and Local Rules—which require Plaintiff to keep his address of 19 record updated. The Court declines to expend its limited resources on a case that Plaintiff has 20 chosen to ignore. 21 22 23 24 RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for failure to obey a Court order and for failure to prosecute. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 25 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 26 of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 27 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 28 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time 2 1 may result in waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 2, 2019 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.