1 2 JS-6
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 JOSE PEPE MITCHELL, Case No. 5:24-cv-00104-MWF-KES
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
14 J. SKELTON, LOCAL RULES
15 Defendant.
18 I.
19 BACKGROUND
20 In January 2024, the Court received a pro se civil rights Complaint from 21 Jose PePe Mitchell (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. 1.) Per the Complaint, Plaintiff was an 22 inmate at California Men’s Colony (“CMC”) in San Luis Obispo with California 23 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) identification number 24 BC7067. (Id.) 25 In August 2024, Defendant Skelton answered the Complaint. (Dkt. 20.) 26 Shortly thereafter, the Court issued a Case Management Order (“CMO”). (Dkt. 27 21.) Among other things, the CMO warned Plaintiff that he needed to keep the 28 1 Court apprised of his current mailing address: 2 If Plaintiff fails to keep his address up to date, this action may be 3 dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 41-6 (“If a Court 4 order or other mail served on a pro se plaintiff at his address of record 5 is returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable and the pro se party 6 has not filed a notice of change of address within 14 days of the 7 service date of the order or other Court document, the Court may 8 dismiss the action with or without prejudice for failure to 9 prosecute.”). 10 (Id. at 3-4.) 11 The CMO mailed to Plaintiff was returned to the Court as undeliverable. 12 (Dkt. 22.) The envelope was marked “out to court.” (Id.) Upon receipt, the Court 13 looked at the CDCR’s Incarcerated Records and Information Search (“CIRIS”) 14 website. See https://ciris.mt.cdcr.ca.gov/search. That website indicated that 15 Plaintiff was still housed at CMC. Often, CDCR does not update this website to 16 reflect short, temporary moves for court appearances. The Court, therefore, issued 17 a minute order instructing the Clerk to re-mail the CMO to Plaintiff’s address of 18 record at CMC. The minute order also warned Plaintiff that if it, too, was returned 19 as undeliverable, then his case would likely be dismissed for failure to comply with 20 Local Rule 41-6. (Dkt. 23.) 21 On September 16, 2024, the Court received the mailed minute order back 22 marked undeliverable. (Dkt. 24.) The Court again checked the CIRIS website 23 which again indicated that Plaintiff was still housed at CMC. Plaintiff’s last filing 24 in May 2024 used his address of record at CMC. (Dkt. 12.) 25 The Court served the CMO on Plaintiff by mail on August 15, 2024. (Dkt. 26 21.) More than a month has passed since then, but Plaintiff has not filed a notice 27 of change of address. 28 1 II. 2 LEGAL STANDARD 3 A district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, failure to 4 follow court orders, or failure to comply with the federal or local rules. See Fed. 5 R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); Ghazali v. 6 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Central District of California 7 Local Rule 41-1 provides, “Civil suits which have been pending for an 8 unreasonable period of time without any action having been taken therein may, 9 after notice, be dismissed for want of prosecution.” Local Rule 41-6 allows the 10 Court to dismiss a case if the pro se plaintiff fails to update his mailing address 11 promptly. 12 The Court has discretion to dismiss the action with or without prejudice. 13 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“[u]nless the dismissal order states otherwise,” or certain 14 exceptions apply, a dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) 15 “operates as an adjudication on the merits”); Local Rule 41-2 (“[u]nless the Court 16 provides otherwise, any dismissal pursuant to [Local Rule] 41-1 shall be without 17 prejudice”); Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1385 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Dismissal 18 with prejudice and default on counterclaims, for willful and inexcusable failure to 19 prosecute, are proper exercises of discretion under Federal Rules of Civil 20 Procedure 41(b), 16(f), and the inherent power of the court.”). 21 In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with court 22 orders or rules, the Ninth Circuit has instructed district courts to consider the 23 following five factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 24 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 25 defendants; (4) the availability of less drastic sanctions; and (5) the public policy 26 favoring disposition of cases on their merits. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) 27 Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). The test is not 28 “mechanical,” but provides a “non-exhaustive list of things” to “think about.” 1 Valley Eng’rs v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998). 2 III. 3 DISCUSSION 4 Here, the first two factors favor dismissal. The first factor—the public’s 5 interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation—“always favors dismissal.” 6 Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). The second factor— 7 the Court’s need to manage its docket—favors dismissal because Plaintiff’s 8 “noncompliance has caused [this] action to come to a complete halt, thereby 9 allowing [them] to control the pace of the docket rather than the Court.” Id. 10 (internal quotations marks omitted). Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with an 11 updated mailing address, and the Court cannot obtain that information from the 12 CDCR’s CIRIS website. 13 The third factor—prejudice to Defendants—weighs in favor of dismissal. 14 Defendant, a correctional officer at the California Rehabilitation Center in Norco, 15 is accused of violating Plaintiff’s civil rights more than a year ago in January 2023. 16 (Dkt. 1 at 2-3.) A rebuttable presumption of prejudice to defendants always arises 17 when a plaintiff unreasonably delays prosecution of an action, In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 18 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994), because unnecessary delay “inherently increases the 19 risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale.” 20 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). 21 The fourth factor—availability of less drastic sanctions—favors dismissal. 22 The Local Rules, available online, warn all pro se litigants that failure to keep the 23 Court apprised of their current mailing address could result in dismissal. The 24 Court’s CMO and minute order attempting to warn Plaintiff directly about this 25 Local Rule were both returned as undeliverable. (Dkt. 22, 24). See Ferdik v. 26 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (“a district court’s warning to a 27 party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy 28 the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement”) (citation omitted).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 JS-6
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 JOSE PEPE MITCHELL, Case No. 5:24-cv-00104-MWF-KES
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
14 J. SKELTON, LOCAL RULES
15 Defendant.
18 I.
19 BACKGROUND
20 In January 2024, the Court received a pro se civil rights Complaint from 21 Jose PePe Mitchell (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. 1.) Per the Complaint, Plaintiff was an 22 inmate at California Men’s Colony (“CMC”) in San Luis Obispo with California 23 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) identification number 24 BC7067. (Id.) 25 In August 2024, Defendant Skelton answered the Complaint. (Dkt. 20.) 26 Shortly thereafter, the Court issued a Case Management Order (“CMO”). (Dkt. 27 21.) Among other things, the CMO warned Plaintiff that he needed to keep the 28 1 Court apprised of his current mailing address: 2 If Plaintiff fails to keep his address up to date, this action may be 3 dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 41-6 (“If a Court 4 order or other mail served on a pro se plaintiff at his address of record 5 is returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable and the pro se party 6 has not filed a notice of change of address within 14 days of the 7 service date of the order or other Court document, the Court may 8 dismiss the action with or without prejudice for failure to 9 prosecute.”). 10 (Id. at 3-4.) 11 The CMO mailed to Plaintiff was returned to the Court as undeliverable. 12 (Dkt. 22.) The envelope was marked “out to court.” (Id.) Upon receipt, the Court 13 looked at the CDCR’s Incarcerated Records and Information Search (“CIRIS”) 14 website. See https://ciris.mt.cdcr.ca.gov/search. That website indicated that 15 Plaintiff was still housed at CMC. Often, CDCR does not update this website to 16 reflect short, temporary moves for court appearances. The Court, therefore, issued 17 a minute order instructing the Clerk to re-mail the CMO to Plaintiff’s address of 18 record at CMC. The minute order also warned Plaintiff that if it, too, was returned 19 as undeliverable, then his case would likely be dismissed for failure to comply with 20 Local Rule 41-6. (Dkt. 23.) 21 On September 16, 2024, the Court received the mailed minute order back 22 marked undeliverable. (Dkt. 24.) The Court again checked the CIRIS website 23 which again indicated that Plaintiff was still housed at CMC. Plaintiff’s last filing 24 in May 2024 used his address of record at CMC. (Dkt. 12.) 25 The Court served the CMO on Plaintiff by mail on August 15, 2024. (Dkt. 26 21.) More than a month has passed since then, but Plaintiff has not filed a notice 27 of change of address. 28 1 II. 2 LEGAL STANDARD 3 A district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, failure to 4 follow court orders, or failure to comply with the federal or local rules. See Fed. 5 R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); Ghazali v. 6 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Central District of California 7 Local Rule 41-1 provides, “Civil suits which have been pending for an 8 unreasonable period of time without any action having been taken therein may, 9 after notice, be dismissed for want of prosecution.” Local Rule 41-6 allows the 10 Court to dismiss a case if the pro se plaintiff fails to update his mailing address 11 promptly. 12 The Court has discretion to dismiss the action with or without prejudice. 13 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“[u]nless the dismissal order states otherwise,” or certain 14 exceptions apply, a dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) 15 “operates as an adjudication on the merits”); Local Rule 41-2 (“[u]nless the Court 16 provides otherwise, any dismissal pursuant to [Local Rule] 41-1 shall be without 17 prejudice”); Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1385 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Dismissal 18 with prejudice and default on counterclaims, for willful and inexcusable failure to 19 prosecute, are proper exercises of discretion under Federal Rules of Civil 20 Procedure 41(b), 16(f), and the inherent power of the court.”). 21 In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with court 22 orders or rules, the Ninth Circuit has instructed district courts to consider the 23 following five factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 24 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 25 defendants; (4) the availability of less drastic sanctions; and (5) the public policy 26 favoring disposition of cases on their merits. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) 27 Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). The test is not 28 “mechanical,” but provides a “non-exhaustive list of things” to “think about.” 1 Valley Eng’rs v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998). 2 III. 3 DISCUSSION 4 Here, the first two factors favor dismissal. The first factor—the public’s 5 interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation—“always favors dismissal.” 6 Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). The second factor— 7 the Court’s need to manage its docket—favors dismissal because Plaintiff’s 8 “noncompliance has caused [this] action to come to a complete halt, thereby 9 allowing [them] to control the pace of the docket rather than the Court.” Id. 10 (internal quotations marks omitted). Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with an 11 updated mailing address, and the Court cannot obtain that information from the 12 CDCR’s CIRIS website. 13 The third factor—prejudice to Defendants—weighs in favor of dismissal. 14 Defendant, a correctional officer at the California Rehabilitation Center in Norco, 15 is accused of violating Plaintiff’s civil rights more than a year ago in January 2023. 16 (Dkt. 1 at 2-3.) A rebuttable presumption of prejudice to defendants always arises 17 when a plaintiff unreasonably delays prosecution of an action, In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 18 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994), because unnecessary delay “inherently increases the 19 risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale.” 20 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). 21 The fourth factor—availability of less drastic sanctions—favors dismissal. 22 The Local Rules, available online, warn all pro se litigants that failure to keep the 23 Court apprised of their current mailing address could result in dismissal. The 24 Court’s CMO and minute order attempting to warn Plaintiff directly about this 25 Local Rule were both returned as undeliverable. (Dkt. 22, 24). See Ferdik v. 26 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (“a district court’s warning to a 27 party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy 28 the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement”) (citation omitted). Without a 1 | valid mailing address, the Court has no means of communicating with Plaintiff. 2 The fifth factor—public policy favoring a disposition of an action on its 3 || merits—weighs against dismissal here. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643. But this 4 | factor alone does not outweigh the others that all tip in favor of dismissal. Plaintiff 5 | is responsible for prosecuting his lawsuit in compliance with the Local Rules. For 6 || more than a month, Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court apprised of his current 7 || mailing address. 8 Given that the enumerated factors largely support dismissal, this action 9 | should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) and Local Rules 41-1 and 41-6. 10 | Considering all of the circumstances, and in particular Plaintiff's pro se status, the 11 | dismissal will be without prejudice. 12 IV. 13 CONCLUSION 14 For these reasons, it is HEREBY ODERED that the Complaint and entire 15 | action is dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure comply with Local 16 | Rule 41-6 by keeping the Court informed of his current mailing address. 17 18 | DATED: September 26, 2024 Y LYM Wy He, 19 MICHAEL W. 1A , Lb! United States District Judge 20 Presented by:
23 Flows. Seat) Hon. Karen E. Scott 24 | United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28