Beckham v. Tyler

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: August 29, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00073
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Aug 29, 2022

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 RASHAD BECKHAM, No. 2:22-cv-0073-SMJ 5 Plaintiff, 6 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. PURSUANT TO LCivR 41(b)(2) 7 C/O TYLER, C/O MRS. FRAZIER, 8 C/O ALLISON, C/O PETRIE, C/O HAMBLIN C/O PURCELL and 9 SPOKANE COUNTY JAIL NURSE,

10 Defendants. 11

12 Plaintiff Rashad Beckham filed a pro se civil rights complaint on April 19, 13 2022, while incarcerated at Spokane County Detention Services. ECF No. 1. 14 Plaintiff did not pay the $402.00 filing fee to commence this action or properly seek 15 leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). By letter dated April 16 19, 2022, the Clerk’s Office advised Plaintiff of these deficiencies, and specifically 17 instructed Plaintiff to keep the Court informed of any change of address: “If you do 18 not provide written notice of your change of address, the District Court 19 Executive/Clerk cannot be responsible for your inability to received Court orders 20 and correspondence.” ECF No. 2. Plaintiff did not correct the deficiencies. 1 On June 8, 2022, the Court directed Plaintiff to either pay the applicable filing 2 fee of $402.00 (a $350.00 filing fee, plus a $52.00 administrative fee) or properly

3 request leave to proceed in forma pauperis. That Order, addressed to Plaintiff at 4 Spokane County Detention Services, was returned as undeliverable on June 23, 5 2022. ECF No. 4.

6 Local Civil Rule 41(b)(2) requires a pro se litigant to keep the Court and 7 opposing parties advised as to his current mailing address. If mail directed to a pro 8 se plaintiff is returned by the Postal Service, he has sixty (60) days to notify the 9 Court and opposing parties of his current address or the Court may dismiss the

10 action. LCivR 41(b)(2). 11 The Court has an interest in managing its docket and in the prompt resolution 12 of civil matters. See Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 959 (9th Cir. 2011)

13 (affirming district court’s inherent power to control its docket); see also Pagtalunan 14 v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642–44 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing factors to consider in 15 dismissing a claim for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court order, 16 including the public’s interest in expeditious resolution, the court’s need to manage

17 docket, and the risk of prejudice to defendants). Because Plaintiff has failed to keep 18 the Court apprised of his current address, and has not satisfied the filing fee and in 19 forma pauperis requirements, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss his action.

20 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 3 LCivR 41(b)(2). 4 2. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal 5 of this Order could not be taken in good faith and would lack any 6 arguable basis in law or fact.

7 3. The Clerk’s Office is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT and CLOSE 8 this file. 9 4, The Court certifies that any appeal of this dismissal would not be taken

10 in good faith and would lack an arguable basis in law or fact.

11 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and 12 || provide copies to pro se Plaintiff at his last known address. 13 DATED this 29" day of August 2022. 14 (Gn 0 sedan an +t. 15 > “py SALVADOR MENDOZAYIR. 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20