(PC) Figueras v. Gonzalez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RALEIGH R. FIGUERAS, 1:22-cv-01328-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED FOR A FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER 14 NANCY GONZALEZ, et al., 45-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Raleigh R. Figueras is a former immigration detainee proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff filed his original complaint on October 17, 2022. (Doc. 1.) On June 30, 2023, this 22 Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 7.) The Court found Plaintiff’s complaint violated 23 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and failed to state a claim upon which relief could 24 be granted. (Id. at 4-5, 8.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file a first amended complaint, curing the 25 deficiencies identified by the Court, or, alternatively, to file a notice of voluntary dismissal, 26 within 21 days of the date of service of the order. (Id. at 8-9.) The screening order was served on 27 Plaintiff that same date, at his then address of record: 611 Frontage Rd., McFarland, CA 93250. 28 1 On July 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed an untitled document docketed as a Notice of Change of 2 Address. (See Doc. 8.) Plaintiff provided a “Return Address – Due to deportation – changed of 3 address” of Barangay #1 Val Buena Pinili, Ilocos Norte 2905.” (Id. at 2.) 4 On July 14, 2023, the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) returned the screening order 5 marked “Undeliverable, Not in Custody.” (See Docket Entry dated 7/14/23.) On July 17, 2023, 6 the Clerk’s Office re-served the screening order to Plaintiff at his new address in the Philippines. 7 (See Docket Entry dated 7/17/23.) 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide that the 10 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 11 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 12 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 13 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 14 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 15 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 16 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 17 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 18 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 19 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 20 Here, Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s June 30, 2023, First Screening 21 Order. Plaintiff was afforded 21 days within which to cure the deficiencies identified in his 22 complaint by filing a first amended complaint, or to file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 8- 23 9). Although the docket indicates that Plaintiff was served with that order on June 30, 2023, (see 24 Docket Entry dated 6/30/23), at the address on record with the Court, the order was returned by 25 the USPS marked “Undeliverable, Not in Custody.” (Docket Entry dated 7/14/23.) Upon 26 receiving notice Plaintiff’s address had changed, the Clerk’s Office re-served the screening order 27 to Plaintiff at his current address in the Philippines on July 17, 2023. (Docket Entry dated 28 7/17/23.) More than 38 days have elapsed, and Plaintiff has failed to file either a first amended 1 complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal, or to otherwise contact the Court. As a result, 2 Plaintiff’s action is subject to dismissal for his failure to obey a court order. 3 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 4 Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 45 5 days of the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to 6 comply with the Court’s order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file a first 7 amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal of this case. 8 Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 9 dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

12 Dated: August 24, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13

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