(PC) Gilley v. Fisher

Opinion

JACK F. GILLEY, No. 1:21-cv-00468 KES GSA (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING v. ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT FISHER, ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Defendant. Doc. 15 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights action on March 22, 2021, seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. After two screenings, plaintiff’s second amended complaint was docketed on May 19, 2023. Doc. 11. Plaintiff thereafter notified the Court of his updated address on August 8, 2023. Doc. 12. On March 11, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge directed plaintiff to file a non- prisoner in forma pauperis application within twenty-one days. Doc. 31. On March 21, 2025, the Court’s order was returned as “Undeliverable, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward.” See docket.1 On April 29, 2025, the magistrate judge issued findings and 1 Although plaintiff’s copy of the court’s order regarding the in forma pauperis application was returned as undeliverable, plaintiff was properly served. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at a party’s record address is effective, and it is plaintiff’s responsibility to keep his address current with the court. recommendations recommending dismissal of plaintiffs suit for failure to comply with a court order and failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. Doc. 15. The magistrate judge found that the relevant factors weighed in favor of dismissal. Id. at 3-4; see Henderson vy. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (failure to prosecute); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 133 (9th Cir. 1987) (failure to comply with a court order). The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days. Doc. 15. Plaintiff did not file any objections, nor has he otherwise communicated with the Court. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. The magistrate judge correctly determined that the relevant factors under Malone and Henderson support dismissal as plaintiff appears to have abandoned this action. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued April 29, 2025 (Doc. 15), are ADOPTED IN FULL; and 2. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice for plaintiff's failure to obey a court order and failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rules 110 and 183¢b). 92 IT IS SO ORDERED. _ Dated: _ June 12, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE