Goodwin v. The California Department of Insurance

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DUCHUN LAFRE GOODWIN, Case No. 1:23-cv-00346-HBK 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 v. PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 183(b) 14 THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE and MELINDA DAVIS, 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff Duchun Lafre Goodwin, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 20 initiated this action on March 8, 2023 by filing a form “Complaint for Civil Case.” (Doc. No. 1, 21 “Complaint”). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the district 22 court dismiss this action consistent with this Court’s Local Rule for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 23 this action. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to keep the Court appraised of a current address. 24 BACKGROUND 25 On April 21, 2023, the undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 26 4). The Order to Show Cause directed Plaintiff to show cause was the Court should not dismiss 27 the instant case as duplicative of his earlier filed action docketed at Case No. 1:23- cv-00259-JLT- 28 HBK (E.D. Cal. 2023). On May 3, 2023, the April 21, 2023 Order to Show Cause was returned as 1 undeliverable. See docket. Plaintiff’s change of address was due no later than July 5, 2023. 2 Local Rule 183(b). Plaintiff has not filed an updated address as required by Local Rule 182(f) 3 and the time to do so has expired. See docket. 4 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 5 Plaintiff was obligated to keep this Court informed of her proper address. Specifically: 6 [a] party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail 7 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 8 and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice 9 for failure to prosecute. 10 Local Rule 183(b); see also Local Rule 182(f) (all parties are “under a continuing duty” to notify 11 the clerk of “any change of address[.]”). Precedent supports a dismissal of a case when a litigant 12 does not keep the court appraised on his address. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) 13 (affirming lower court and finding no abuse of discretion when district court dismissed case 14 without prejudice after pro se plaintiff did not comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs 15 keep court apprised of addresses at all times); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th 16 Cir. 1986) (dismissal proper for failure to prosecute and comply with local rules of court); Hanley 17 v. Opinski, 2018 WL 3388510 (E.D. Ca. July 10, 2018) (dismissing action for failure to prosecute 18 and to provide court with current address); Davis v. Kern Valley State Prison, No. 1:22-CV-1489- 19 JLT-EPG (PC), 2023 WL 2992980, at *1, fn 1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2023). More than sixty-three 20 (63) days has passed since the Court’s April 21, 2023 Order was returned as undeliverable, and 21 Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address. 22 According, it is ORDERED: 23 This case be assigned to a district judge for consideration of these Findings and 24 Recommendations. 25 It is further RECOMMENDED: 26 This case be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 183(b) for Plaintiff’s 27 failure to prosecute this action. 28 //// 1 NOTICE TO PARTIES 2 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 3 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 4 | days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written 5 || objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 6 | Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 7 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 8 | 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 9 Dated: _ August 23, 2023 Wiha Th fares Zack 11 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28