Vela v. Tulare County District Attorney

Opinion

1 2 3 4

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PASTOR ISABEL VELA, Case No. 1:23-cv-01709-KES-BAM 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 TULARE COUNTY DISTRICT (Doc. 7) ATTORNEY, 15 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE Defendant. 16 17 18 I. Background 19 Plaintiff Pastor Isabel Vela (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 20 initiated this civil action on December 12, 2023. (Doc. 1.) On June 4, 2025, the Court screened 21 Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and granted her leave to amend within 22 thirty (30) days. (Doc. 7.) The Court’s screening order was returned as “Undeliverable, Vacant” 23 on June 23, 2025. 24 II. Discussion 25 Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of her current address at all times. Local 26 Rule 183(b) provides:

27 Address Changes. A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and 28 opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail directed to a 1 plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within thirty (30) days 2 thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 3

4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also provides for dismissal of an action for failure to 5 prosecute.1 6 Plaintiff’s address change was due no later than July 23, 2025. Plaintiff has failed to file a 7 change of address or otherwise update the Court. The Court will therefore recommend that this 8 action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 9 “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is 10 required to weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 11 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 12 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 13 sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and 14 citation omitted); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 15 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do and are not conditions 16 that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 (citation 17 omitted). 18 Given Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Court’s order, the need for expeditious 19 resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. In 20 re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1227. The third factor, risk of prejudice to the defendant, also weighs in 21 favor of dismissal, as a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in 22 prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor 23 usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. 24 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little 25 support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but 26 whose conduct impedes progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 27 1 Courts may dismiss actions sua sponte under Rule 41(b) based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 28 Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U. S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). 1 1228 (citation omitted). More importantly, given the Court’s apparent inability to communicate 2 with Plaintiff, there are no other reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to 3 prosecute this action and her failure to apprise the Court of her current address. Id. at 1228–29; 4 Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441. 5 III. Conclusion and Recommendation 6 Based on the above, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed 7 without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 183(b). 8 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 9 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 10 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 11 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 12 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 13 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 14 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 15 limit may not be considered. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 16 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 17 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 18 v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20

21 Dated: August 5, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22

23 24 25 26 27 28