(PC) Neumann v. Veal et al, No. 2:2007cv00082 - Document 63 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 10/5/09 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed, w/out prejudice, for pltf's failure to keep the court apprised of his current address and failure to comply w/ court rules and order, and all pending motions be denied as moot. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due w/in 20 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Neumann v. Veal et al Doc. 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES NEUMAN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. CIV S-07-0082-JAM-CMK-P vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS VEAL, et al., 15 Defendants. / 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 19, 2009, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show 19 cause in writing, within 30 days, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to keep 20 the court informed of his current address. No response has been received. 21 On July 13, 2009, Defendants filed a motion to compel discovery responses (Doc. 22 61). Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to the motion. In the motion, Defendants informed the 23 court that Plaintiff had apparently been paroled, and had not informed the court or the Defendants 24 of his new address. 25 /// 26 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 As stated in the order to show cause, Local Rule 83-182(f) requires attorneys and 2 parties proceeding pro se to keep the court and all other parties apprised of any change of address 3 or telephone number. It also provides that “[a]bsent such notice, service of documents at the 4 prior address of the attorney or party shall be fully effective.” Local Rule 83-182(f). Plaintiff 5 was also previously informed of this requirement by court order. (See Doc. 21). 6 The court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of 7 dismissal. See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. 8 U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's 9 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3) 10 the risk of prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 11 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 12 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an 13 appropriate sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. 14 See Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is 15 appropriate where there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 16 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to 17 comply with a local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep the court appraised of their address at 18 all times. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). 19 Having considered these factors, and in light of plaintiff’s failure to respond to the 20 order to show cause, and his failure to keep the court apprised of his current address, the court 21 finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate. 22 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be 23 dismissed, without prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to keep the court apprised of his current 24 address and failure to comply with court rules and orders, and all pending motions be denied as 25 moot. 26 /// 2 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 2 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days 3 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 4 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 5 Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 6 the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 8 9 10 11 DATED: October 5, 2009 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
