1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KYLE FRANK, No. 1:22-cv-00638 GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL 14 ORAJEL, et al., FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS AND FOR FAILURE TO KEEP COURT 15 Defendants. APPRISED OF CURRENT ADDRESS 16 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS 17
18 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this 19 civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 For the reasons stated below, the undersigned will recommend that this matter be 22 dismissed for failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address and for failure to obey 23 court orders. See ECF Nos. 10, 11. Plaintiff will have fourteen days to file objections to this 24 order. 25 I. RELEVANT FACTS 26 Plaintiff’s last interaction with the Court was on July 8, 2022, when he filed a notice of 27 change of address with the Court. See ECF No. 9. As a result, on July 29, 2024, given the 28 1 amount of time that had passed and prior to screening Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court ordered 2 Plaintiff to file a notice of current address.. See ECF No. 10 (minute order). Plaintiff was given 3 seven days to comply with the Court’s order. See id. 4 Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the Court’s order. As a result, on March 3, 2025, the 5 Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed 6 for failure to obey a court order. ECF No. 11. As an alternative to filing the showing of cause, 7 Plaintiff was permitted either to file a verification of his current address with the Court, or file a 8 notice of change of address. Id. at 2. Once again, Plaintiff was given seven days to comply with 9 the Court’s order. Id. 10 On March 13, 2025, the Court’s order was returned marked, “Undeliverable, Return to 11 Sender, Refused, Unable to Forward, Paroled.” See 3/13/25 docket entry. Based on this, under 12 the Local Rules, Plaintiff had thirty days to file a notice of change of address. To date, however, 13 Plaintiff has not done this, nor has he requested an extension of time to do so. 14 II. APPLICABLE LAW 15 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rules 110, 182(f) and 183(b) 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 permits this Court to dismiss a matter if a plaintiff fails 17 to prosecute or he fails to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Local Rule 110 18 also permits the imposition of sanctions when a party fails to comply with a court order. L.R. 19 110. 20 Local Rule 182(f) permits service to be effective service at a prior address if a party fails 21 to notify the Court and other parties of his address change. Id. Finally, Local Rule 183(b) gives a 22 party who appears in propria persona a period of time to file a notice of change of address if some 23 of his mail is returned to the Court. Id. 24 B. Malone Factors 25 The Ninth Circuit has clearly identified the factors to consider when dismissing a case for 26 failure to comply with a court order. It writes:
27 A district court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case 28 for failure to comply with a court order: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 1 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 2 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” 3 4 Malone v. United States Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Thompson v. 5 Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)). 6 III. DISCUSSION 7 A. Rule 41(b) and Local Rules 110, 182(f) and 183(b) Support Dismissal of This 8 Case 9 Although the docket indicates that Plaintiff’s copy of the order which directed him to file 10 a notice of current address with the Court was returned, Plaintiff was nevertheless properly 11 served. It is a plaintiff’s responsibility to keep a court apprised of his current address at all times. 12 Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully 13 effective. The fact that Plaintiff failed to file a notice of change of address with the Court by 14 itself warrants the dismissal of this matter, in accord with Rule 41(b) and Local Rules 110 and 15 183(b). 16 B. Application of Malone Factors Supports the Dismissal of This Case 17 1. Expeditious Resolution of Litigation; Court’s Need to Manage Its Docket 18 Plaintiff has been given sufficient time to file a notice of change of address with the Court. 19 Yet, he has failed to do so, nor has he contacted the Court to provide exceptional reasons for not 20 having done so. 21 The Eastern District Court has an unusually large caseload.1 “[T]he goal of fairly 22 dispensing justice . . . is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to 23 the processing of frivolous and repetitious requests.” Whitaker v. Superior Court of San 24 1 The Eastern District of California carries one of the largest and most heavily weighted 25 caseloads in the nation. See Office of the Clerk, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, 2024 Annual Report, “Weighted Filings,” p. 35 (2024) (“[O]ur weighted caseload far 26 exceeds the national average . . . ranking us fourth in the nation and first in the Ninth Circuit.”). 27 This problem is compounded by a shortage of jurists to review its pending matters. See generally id. (stating 2024 Biennial Judgeship Survey recommended request for four additional permanent 28 judgeships for Eastern District of California). 1 Francisco, 514 U.S. 208, 210 (1994) (brackets added) (citation omitted). Thus, it follows that 2 keeping this case on the Court’s docket when Plaintiff has not attempted to file a notice of current 3 address with the Court is not a good use of the Court’s already taxed resources. Indeed, keeping 4 this matter on the Court’s docket would stall a quicker disposition of this case. Additionally, in 5 fairness to the many other litigants who currently have cases before the Court, no additional time 6 should be spent on this matter. 7 2. Risk of Prejudice to Defendants 8 Because no viable Defendants have yet to be identified and served in this case, no 9 defendant has put time and effort into defending against it. As a result, there will be no prejudice 10 to anyone other than Plaintiff if the matter is dismissed. On the contrary, dismissal will benefit 11 any potentially viable Defendants because they will not have to defend themselves against 12 Plaintiff’s complaint. 13 3.
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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KYLE FRANK, No. 1:22-cv-00638 GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL 14 ORAJEL, et al., FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS AND FOR FAILURE TO KEEP COURT 15 Defendants. APPRISED OF CURRENT ADDRESS 16 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS 17
18 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this 19 civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 For the reasons stated below, the undersigned will recommend that this matter be 22 dismissed for failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address and for failure to obey 23 court orders. See ECF Nos. 10, 11. Plaintiff will have fourteen days to file objections to this 24 order. 25 I. RELEVANT FACTS 26 Plaintiff’s last interaction with the Court was on July 8, 2022, when he filed a notice of 27 change of address with the Court. See ECF No. 9. As a result, on July 29, 2024, given the 28 1 amount of time that had passed and prior to screening Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court ordered 2 Plaintiff to file a notice of current address.. See ECF No. 10 (minute order). Plaintiff was given 3 seven days to comply with the Court’s order. See id. 4 Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the Court’s order. As a result, on March 3, 2025, the 5 Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed 6 for failure to obey a court order. ECF No. 11. As an alternative to filing the showing of cause, 7 Plaintiff was permitted either to file a verification of his current address with the Court, or file a 8 notice of change of address. Id. at 2. Once again, Plaintiff was given seven days to comply with 9 the Court’s order. Id. 10 On March 13, 2025, the Court’s order was returned marked, “Undeliverable, Return to 11 Sender, Refused, Unable to Forward, Paroled.” See 3/13/25 docket entry. Based on this, under 12 the Local Rules, Plaintiff had thirty days to file a notice of change of address. To date, however, 13 Plaintiff has not done this, nor has he requested an extension of time to do so. 14 II. APPLICABLE LAW 15 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rules 110, 182(f) and 183(b) 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 permits this Court to dismiss a matter if a plaintiff fails 17 to prosecute or he fails to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Local Rule 110 18 also permits the imposition of sanctions when a party fails to comply with a court order. L.R. 19 110. 20 Local Rule 182(f) permits service to be effective service at a prior address if a party fails 21 to notify the Court and other parties of his address change. Id. Finally, Local Rule 183(b) gives a 22 party who appears in propria persona a period of time to file a notice of change of address if some 23 of his mail is returned to the Court. Id. 24 B. Malone Factors 25 The Ninth Circuit has clearly identified the factors to consider when dismissing a case for 26 failure to comply with a court order. It writes:
27 A district court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case 28 for failure to comply with a court order: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 1 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 2 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” 3 4 Malone v. United States Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Thompson v. 5 Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)). 6 III. DISCUSSION 7 A. Rule 41(b) and Local Rules 110, 182(f) and 183(b) Support Dismissal of This 8 Case 9 Although the docket indicates that Plaintiff’s copy of the order which directed him to file 10 a notice of current address with the Court was returned, Plaintiff was nevertheless properly 11 served. It is a plaintiff’s responsibility to keep a court apprised of his current address at all times. 12 Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully 13 effective. The fact that Plaintiff failed to file a notice of change of address with the Court by 14 itself warrants the dismissal of this matter, in accord with Rule 41(b) and Local Rules 110 and 15 183(b). 16 B. Application of Malone Factors Supports the Dismissal of This Case 17 1. Expeditious Resolution of Litigation; Court’s Need to Manage Its Docket 18 Plaintiff has been given sufficient time to file a notice of change of address with the Court. 19 Yet, he has failed to do so, nor has he contacted the Court to provide exceptional reasons for not 20 having done so. 21 The Eastern District Court has an unusually large caseload.1 “[T]he goal of fairly 22 dispensing justice . . . is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to 23 the processing of frivolous and repetitious requests.” Whitaker v. Superior Court of San 24 1 The Eastern District of California carries one of the largest and most heavily weighted 25 caseloads in the nation. See Office of the Clerk, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, 2024 Annual Report, “Weighted Filings,” p. 35 (2024) (“[O]ur weighted caseload far 26 exceeds the national average . . . ranking us fourth in the nation and first in the Ninth Circuit.”). 27 This problem is compounded by a shortage of jurists to review its pending matters. See generally id. (stating 2024 Biennial Judgeship Survey recommended request for four additional permanent 28 judgeships for Eastern District of California). 1 Francisco, 514 U.S. 208, 210 (1994) (brackets added) (citation omitted). Thus, it follows that 2 keeping this case on the Court’s docket when Plaintiff has not attempted to file a notice of current 3 address with the Court is not a good use of the Court’s already taxed resources. Indeed, keeping 4 this matter on the Court’s docket would stall a quicker disposition of this case. Additionally, in 5 fairness to the many other litigants who currently have cases before the Court, no additional time 6 should be spent on this matter. 7 2. Risk of Prejudice to Defendants 8 Because no viable Defendants have yet to be identified and served in this case, no 9 defendant has put time and effort into defending against it. As a result, there will be no prejudice 10 to anyone other than Plaintiff if the matter is dismissed. On the contrary, dismissal will benefit 11 any potentially viable Defendants because they will not have to defend themselves against 12 Plaintiff’s complaint. 13 3. Availability of Less Drastic Sanctions; Favored Disposition of Cases on 14 Merits 15 Finally, given that Plaintiff has had sufficient time under the Local Rules to file a change 16 of address2 since its order directing Plaintiff to file a notice of current address with the Court 17 issued, without the filing of a notice of new address by Plaintiff, there is no less drastic option 18 than dismissal. Although the disposition of cases on their merits is preferred, this matter cannot 19 be prosecuted without a current address for Plaintiff and without participation by Plaintiff, nor 20 can it be disposed of on its merits. 21 IV. CONCLUSION 22 For these reasons, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rules 23 110, 182(f) and 183(b), and having considered the Malone factors, the undersigned recommends 24 that this matter be dismissed without prejudice for failure to obey a court order and for Plaintiff’s 25 failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address. Despite the fact that Plaintiff cannot be 26 located and that no viable Defendants have been identified and served, a period of fourteen days 27 2 In 2025, the period that a litigant appearing in propria person has to file a notice of change of 28 address was reduced from sixty-three days to thirty days. See Local Rule 183(b). 1 will be given for Plaintiff to file objections to this order. Should this order be returned to the 2 Court marked undeliverable before the end of the fourteen-day period, the District Judge that will 3 be assigned to this action may dismiss it immediately. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a District Judge to this action; 6 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED without prejudice 7 for Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order and for his failure to keep the Court apprised of his 8 current address. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 11 after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 12 with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 13 and Recommendations,” and it shall not exceed fifteen pages. 14 The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the objections. To the extent that Plaintiff 15 wishes to refer to any exhibit, when possible, he must reference the exhibit in the record by its 16 CM/ECF document and page number or reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in 17 excess of the fifteen-page limit may be disregarded by the District Judge when conducting the 28 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C) review of the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff’s failure to file 19 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. See 20 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 21 Cir. 1991). 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24
25 Dated: June 2, 2025 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26