(PC) Morris v. Modhaddam

Opinion

CONDALEE MORRIS, No. 2: 18-cv-2850 MCE KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER G. MODHADDAM, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute. On July 28, 2020, mail served on plaintiff was returned unserved and marked “refused.” On August 4, 2020, mail served on plaintiff was returned unserved and marked “refused.” District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate ... dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of wAIe 6. INIS LING RAVI Vo PI Oe POY ee

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. US. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson y. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). The return of the mail addressed to plaintiff marked “refused” suggests that plaintiff is no longer interested in litigating this action. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute. Plaintiff is informed that the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice if he fails to respond to this order. In an abundance of caution, the undersigned also directs the Clerk of the Court to serve this order on the Litigation Coordinator at California State Prison-Corcoran (“Corcoran”). The undersigned anticipates that the Litigation Coordinator will determine that the mail addressed to plaintiff and returned marked “refused” was properly returned to the court, or will speak to plaintiff if that is not the case. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for his failure to prosecute; the undersigned will recommend dismissal of this action if plaintiff fails to respond to this order; 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order on the Litigation Coordinator at Corcoran so that the Litigation Coordinator may determine that the mail addressed to plaintiff and returned marked “refused” was properly returned to the court. Dated: August 14, 2020 Fens Arn UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Morr2850.osc