Johnson v. City of Syracuse Department of Neighborhood & Business Development

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Case No. 24-cv-1838-BAS-DTF

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

OF NEIGHBORHOOD & BUSINESS 15 DEVELOPMENT, ATEM FARMS, 16 Defendants. 17

18 On October 11, 2024, Plaintiff Robert W. Johnson, proceeding pro se, commenced 19 this action. (ECF No. 1.) The same day, Plaintiff also filed an application seeking leave to 20 proceed without prepaying fees or costs, also known as proceeding in forma pauperis 21 (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.) A month later, the Court denied Johnson’s application to proceed 22 IFP because he did not provide information as to how he obtains the necessities of life, 23 instead marking all values for his income as $0.00. (ECF No. 3.) The Court ordered 24 Johnson to either pay the filing fee or file a new request to proceed IFP. (Id. at 3.) However, 25 the Order denying Johnson IFP status was returned as undeliverable to this Court. (ECF 26 No. 4.) 27 Last month, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why this case should 28 not be dismissed for failure to prosecute because Plaintiff did not update his address. (ECF 1 || No. 6.) The Order to Show Cause informed Johnson that the Civil Local Rules of this 2 || district require pro se litigants to keep the court apprised of their current address. (See id. 3 1-2 (citing CivLR 83.11(b)).) The Order to Show Cause gave Johnson until March 12, 4 || 2025, to update his address or risk dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. Once again, 5 ||the Order was returned as undeliverable to this Court. (ECF No. 7.) Meanwhile, the 6 || deadline has come and gone yet Plaintiff has filed no response to the Court’s Order to Show 7 || Cause. 8 Precedent supports a dismissal of a case when a litigant does not keep the court 9 || apprised of his address. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming 10 || lower court and finding no abuse of discretion when district court dismissed case without 11 prejudice after pro se plaintiff did not comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs 12 ||keep court apprised of addresses at all times); see also Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 13 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal of case brought in pro per where the pro 14 || per litigant failed to prosecute and comply with the local rules of the court); see also 15 || Hickman v. Cnty. of Butte, 586 F. App’x 285, 286 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming a lower court’s 16 || dismissal of a case where the pro se litigant failed to keep the district court informed of his 17 || current address, in violation of a local rule, and the district court dismissed the case). 18 Consequently, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action. The 19 Clerk of Court shall close the case. 21 22 DATED: April 7, 2025 yatta Bahar □□ 23 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 54 United States District Court

25 26 27 28 4.