Jacob Angelo Massey v. Anne Carpenter, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 8, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00560
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 3:25-cv-00560-MMD-CSD JACOB ANGELO MASSEY, 4 Report & Recommendation of Plaintiff United States Magistrate Judge 5 v. 6 ANNE CARPENTER, et al., 7 Defendants 8

9 This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Miranda M. Du, United 10 States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 11 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the Local Rules of Practice, LR 1B 1-4. 12 For the reasons set forth below, the court recommends dismissal of this action due to 13 Plaintiff’s failure to update his address. 14 I. BACKGROUND 15 Plaintiff was in custody at Northern Nevada Correctional Center when he initiated this 16 pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 4, 2025, the court entered 17 an order directing Plaintiff to update his address with the court, as the NDOC Inmate Locator 18 reflected Plaintiff was no longer in custody at NNCC. (ECF No. 5.) All mail sent to Plaintiff 19 since the filing of this case, including the court’s November 4, 2025, has been returned as 20 undeliverable, with a notation that Plaintiff has been paroled. (ECF Nos. 6,7.) 21 Local Rule IA 3-1 requires parties to immediately file with the court written notification 22 of any change in contact information and provides that the failure to do so may result in 23 dismissal of an action or other appropriate sanction. The court’s November 4, 2025, order, gave 1 Plaintiff 21 days to file an updated address pursuant to L.R. IA 3-1 and warned that failure to do 2 so could result in the dismissal of this action. To date, Plaintiff has not updated his address or 3 other contact information. 4 II. DISCUSSION

5 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to update his address as required 6 by local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). In considering whether 7 to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders, the court considers: “(1) 8 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 9 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 10 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Id. at 1440; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 41(b). 12 Plaintiff’s failure to provide an updated address impedes both the public’s interest in 13 expeditious resolution of litigation and the court’s ability to manage its own docket. See 14 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (“It is incumbent upon the Court to

15 manage its docket without being subject to routine noncompliance of litigants.”). These factors 16 therefore weigh in favor of dismissal, as does the third factor – the risk of prejudice to defendants 17 caused by the fading memories of witnesses and potential loss of evidence. See id. at 643 (citation 18 omitted). In addition, where Plaintiff has failed to communicate with the court, there are no less 19 drastic sanctions available, which also supports dismissal. While public policy favors disposition 20 of cases on their merits, weighing against dismissal, this one factor does not outweigh all the other 21 factors compelling dismissal. 22 23 ] Accordingly, as the relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissal, the court recommends the District Judge enter an order dismissing this action without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure 3|| to update his address. 4 I. RECOMMENDATION 5 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the District Judge enter an order DISMISSING 6]| this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 7 Plaintiff should be aware of the following: 8 1. That he may file, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the Report Recommendation. These objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” and should be accompanied by points and authorities for consideration by the district judge. Failure to file a timely objection may waive the right to 13]| appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9™ Cir. 1991). 14 2. That this Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order and that any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed 16]| until entry of judgment by the district court. 17| IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: December 8, 2025 20 CS or Craig S. Denney 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23