1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER BRANDON DAVIS, Case No.: 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER LIFTING TEMPORARY STAY
13 v. (Doc. 59)
14 M. PORTILLO, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Defendants. FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBEY LOCAL RULES AND FAILURE TO 16 PROSECUTE
17 14-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE
19 Plaintiff Christopher Brandon Davis is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 20 civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 I. INTRODUCTION 22 On January 10, 2025, the Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiff’s Request for 23 Temporary Stay. (Doc. 59.) More particularly, this action was stayed for 120 days and the 24 Discovery and Scheduling Order previously issued was vacated. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff was served 25 with a copy of the order to his address of record: Christopher Brandon Davis, AN-4950, Salinas 26 Valley State Prison, P.O. Box 1050, Soledad, CA 93960-1050. Nevertheless, the Court’s order 27 was returned by the United States Postal Service marked “Undeliverable,” “Return to Sender,” 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 Initially, because more than 120 days have elapsed since the Court issued its January 10, 3 2025, order staying these proceedings temporarily, the stay will be lifted. Next, the Court 4 considers Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address. 5 Applicable Legal Standards 6 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 7 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 8 be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule 9 or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power 10 to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal 11 of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 12 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court 13 order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 14 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. 15 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 16 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 17 prosecute and to comply with local rules). 18 Local Rule 182(f) provides that a “pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify the 19 Clerk and all other parties of any change of address …. Absent such notice, service of documents 20 at the prior address of the … pro se party shall be fully effective.” Further, Local Rule 183(b) 21 states that a “party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties advised 22 as to his or her current address. If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is 23 returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing 24 parties within thirty (30) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action 25 without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” (Emphasis omitted.) 26 “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is 27 required to weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 1 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 2 sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks & 3 citation omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do and are not conditions that 4 must be met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products 5 Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 6 Analysis 7 Here, Plaintiff has failed to file a notice of change of address or to otherwise advise the 8 Court of his current address. As noted above, according to the Court’s docket, Plaintiff’s address 9 of record is “Salinas Valley State Prison, P.O. Box 1050, Soledad, CA 93960-1050.” All orders 10 issued by the Court since November 28, 2022,1 has been served at that address. On February 21, 11 2025, mail was returned to the Court marked “Undeliverable,” “Return to Sender,” “Refused,” 12 “Unable to Forward,” and “Paroled.” Because Plaintiff has failed keep the Court apprised of his 13 current address, this action is subject to dismissal. Given the Court’s inability to communicate 14 with Plaintiff, there are no other reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to 15 obey the Local Rules and failure to prosecute. Thus, the first and second factors — the 16 expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket — weigh in favor of 17 dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 18 The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs fairly in favor of dismissal 19 since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an 20 action. See Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, Defendants have 21 appeared in the action and participated in discovery prior to the temporary stay of these 22 proceedings. (See Docs. 32, 38, 56.) However, these proceedings are now at a standstill because 23 of Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address. Plaintiff has unreasonably 24 delayed the prosecution of this action since at least February 21, 2025, when mail directed to 25 Plaintiff was returned to the Court as undeliverable. Thus, the third factor also weighs in favor of 26 dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440-41. 27
1 1 The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors 2 disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, 3 “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward 4 disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In re PPA, 460 5 F.3d at 1228. Plaintiff has not moved this case forward toward disposition on the merits. It is his 6 responsibility to do so. Instead, Plaintiff has stopped communicating with the Court altogether 7 and has failed to comply with this Court’s Local Rules. Therefore, the fourth factor — the public 8 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits — also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 9 856 F.2d at 1440. 10 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s orders will result in 11 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER BRANDON DAVIS, Case No.: 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER LIFTING TEMPORARY STAY
13 v. (Doc. 59)
14 M. PORTILLO, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Defendants. FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBEY LOCAL RULES AND FAILURE TO 16 PROSECUTE
17 14-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE
19 Plaintiff Christopher Brandon Davis is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 20 civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 I. INTRODUCTION 22 On January 10, 2025, the Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiff’s Request for 23 Temporary Stay. (Doc. 59.) More particularly, this action was stayed for 120 days and the 24 Discovery and Scheduling Order previously issued was vacated. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff was served 25 with a copy of the order to his address of record: Christopher Brandon Davis, AN-4950, Salinas 26 Valley State Prison, P.O. Box 1050, Soledad, CA 93960-1050. Nevertheless, the Court’s order 27 was returned by the United States Postal Service marked “Undeliverable,” “Return to Sender,” 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 Initially, because more than 120 days have elapsed since the Court issued its January 10, 3 2025, order staying these proceedings temporarily, the stay will be lifted. Next, the Court 4 considers Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address. 5 Applicable Legal Standards 6 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 7 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 8 be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule 9 or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power 10 to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal 11 of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 12 A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court 13 order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 14 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. 15 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 16 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 17 prosecute and to comply with local rules). 18 Local Rule 182(f) provides that a “pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify the 19 Clerk and all other parties of any change of address …. Absent such notice, service of documents 20 at the prior address of the … pro se party shall be fully effective.” Further, Local Rule 183(b) 21 states that a “party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties advised 22 as to his or her current address. If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is 23 returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing 24 parties within thirty (30) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action 25 without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” (Emphasis omitted.) 26 “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is 27 required to weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 1 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 2 sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks & 3 citation omitted). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do and are not conditions that 4 must be met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products 5 Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 6 Analysis 7 Here, Plaintiff has failed to file a notice of change of address or to otherwise advise the 8 Court of his current address. As noted above, according to the Court’s docket, Plaintiff’s address 9 of record is “Salinas Valley State Prison, P.O. Box 1050, Soledad, CA 93960-1050.” All orders 10 issued by the Court since November 28, 2022,1 has been served at that address. On February 21, 11 2025, mail was returned to the Court marked “Undeliverable,” “Return to Sender,” “Refused,” 12 “Unable to Forward,” and “Paroled.” Because Plaintiff has failed keep the Court apprised of his 13 current address, this action is subject to dismissal. Given the Court’s inability to communicate 14 with Plaintiff, there are no other reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to 15 obey the Local Rules and failure to prosecute. Thus, the first and second factors — the 16 expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket — weigh in favor of 17 dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 18 The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs fairly in favor of dismissal 19 since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an 20 action. See Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, Defendants have 21 appeared in the action and participated in discovery prior to the temporary stay of these 22 proceedings. (See Docs. 32, 38, 56.) However, these proceedings are now at a standstill because 23 of Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address. Plaintiff has unreasonably 24 delayed the prosecution of this action since at least February 21, 2025, when mail directed to 25 Plaintiff was returned to the Court as undeliverable. Thus, the third factor also weighs in favor of 26 dismissal. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440-41. 27
1 1 The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors 2 disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, 3 “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward 4 disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In re PPA, 460 5 F.3d at 1228. Plaintiff has not moved this case forward toward disposition on the merits. It is his 6 responsibility to do so. Instead, Plaintiff has stopped communicating with the Court altogether 7 and has failed to comply with this Court’s Local Rules. Therefore, the fourth factor — the public 8 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits — also weighs in favor of dismissal. Carey, 9 856 F.2d at 1440. 10 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s orders will result in 11 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. 12 Here, in the First Informational Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case issued April 13 19, 2022, Plaintiff was advised as follows: “In litigating this action, the parties must comply with 14 this Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”), and the Local Rules of the 15 United States District Court, Eastern District of California (“Local Rules”), as modified by this 16 Order. Failure to so comply will be grounds for imposition of sanctions which may include 17 dismissal of the case. Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” (See Doc. 5 at 1.) That Order further 18 advised: “A pro se plaintiff must keep the Court and opposing parties informed of the party’s 19 correct current address. Local Rule 182(f). If a party moves to a different address without filing 20 and serving a notice of change of address, documents served at a party’s old address of record 21 shall be deemed received even if not actually received. … If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff at 22 the address of record is returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable, the order 23 will not be re-served a second time absence a notice of change of address. If a pro se plaintiff’s 24 address is not updated within sixty-three days of mail being returned as undeliverable, the case 25 will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.” (Id. at 5.)2 Significantly too, the Court notes that 26 2 Although the Local Rules now provide that a change of address must be filed within 30 days rather than 63 days, 27 the timing is not relevant here. Eighty (80) days have elapsed since the Court’s most recent order was returned marked undeliverable by the postal service. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to comply with either version of Local 1 Plaintiff recognized his obligation to keep the Court advised of his current address in his request 2 for a temporary stay filed on December 16, 2024. (See Doc. 58 at 4 [“When Plaintiff paroles from 3 Salinas Valley State Prison, he shall keep the defendants and the court informed of his change of 4 address as is required ….”].) Thus, the undersigned finds Plaintiff had adequate warning that 5 dismissal could result from his noncompliance with this Court’s Local Rules and/or failure to 6 update his address. Thus, the fifth factor — the availability of less drastic sanctions —weighs in 7 favor of dismissal. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. 8 In sum, Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s Local Rules, and in doing so, has 9 failed to prosecute this action. Having weighed the equities and considered the relevant factors 10 noted above, the undersigned concludes that dismissal of the action is warranted. 11 III. CONCLUSION, ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION 12 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the temporary 120-day stay of these 13 proceedings (Doc. 59) is LIFTED. 14 Further, for the reasons stated above, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this 15 action be dismissed, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Local Rules and to 16 prosecute this action. 17 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 18 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 19 after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 20 objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 21 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without 22 leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the 23 Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the 24 exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise 25 reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may be 26 disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28 27 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result 1 | in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 2 | ITIS SO ORDERED. > | ated: _ May 12, 2025 | nnd Rr 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28