(PC) Reid v. Allison

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLTON L. REID, Case No.: 1:22-cv-1437 JLT CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS THIS 13 v. ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS AND TO 14 C. ALLISON, et al., PROSECUTE

15 Defendants. (Doc. 14)

17 Carlton L. Reid seeks to hold the defendants liable for civil rights violations pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The assigned magistrate judge screened the allegations in the complaint and 19 found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 13 at 4-9.) The magistrate judge directed 20 Plaintiff to file an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within 30 days. (Id. at 21 9.) In addition, the Court informed Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with the order, the 22 magistrate judge would recommend the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to 23 obey the Court’s order. (Id. at 10.) Despite this warning, Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s 24 order. Then, the magistrate judge recommended this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to 25 obey court orders and failure to prosecute. (Doc. 14.) The Court served the Findings and 26 Recommendations at the only address on record for Plaintiff, but U.S. Postal Service returned the 27 document to the Court as “Undeliverable, Unclaimed” on June 8, 2023. The Court’s Local Rules require a plaintiff to keep the Court apprised of his current 1 | address. Specifically, the Rules state: “If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the 2 | Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and 3 | opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may 4 | dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” See Local Rule 183(b). Because the 5 | Findings and Recommendations were returned to the Court on May 30, 2023, any notice of 6 | change of address was due no later than August 1, 2023. Thus, Plaintiff has also failed to comply 7 | with the Court’s Local Rules, and dismissal is also appropriate on these grounds. See e.g., 8 | Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 2995) (dismissal for failure to comply with local 9 | rules); Henderson vy. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 10 | prosecute and failure to comply with local rules). 11 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this 12 | case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 13 || Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 30, 2023 (Doc. 14) are 15 ADOPTED in full. 16 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 17 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 29 | Dated: _August 20, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28