The opinion of the court was delivered by: Manuel L. Real United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Pro se Plaintiff Robert Sisco, Jr. (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff") filed a Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 27, 2012, pursuant to the Court's Order re Leave to File Action without Prepayment of Full Filing Fee.
On February 17, 2012, the Court issued an Order re Dismissal with Leave to Amend.
On March 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On May 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed a "Notice of Change of Address" and listed his address as 16675 Mojave Drive, Victorville, California 92395. (Docket No. 9.)
On May 17, 2012, a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge was issued recommending that the First Amended Complaint and entire action be dismissed without leave to amend. (Docket No. 11.)
On May 29, 2012, the Court was informed that Plaintiff is no longer at that address. (See, "Not Deliverable as Addressed", Docket Nos. 12 and 13.)
On June 4, 2012, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause re Dismissal requiring Plaintiff to notify the Court of his current address.
Central District Local Rule 41-6 provides: "DISMISSAL - FAILURE OF PRO SE PLAINTIFF TO KEEP COURT APPRISED OF CURRENT ADDRESS - A party appearing pro se shall keep the Court apprised of such party's current address and telephone number, if any, and e-mail address, if any. If mail directed by the Clerk to a pro se Plaintiff's address of record is returned undelivered by the Post Office, and if within fifteen (15) days of the service date, such Plaintiff fails to notify, in writing, the Court and opposing parties of said Plaintiff's current address, the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for want of prosecution."
Plaintiff was ordered to respond within 15 days of the Order. Plaintiff was advised that if he failed to apprise the Court of his current address, the Court would recommend the action be dismissed with prejudice for want of prosecution.
On June 13, 2012, the Order to Show Cause issued on June 4, 2012 was returned undelivered by the Postal Service. On the envelope was a notation "Not Deliverable as Addressed." (Docket No. 15.)
Here, Plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of his current address within 15 days of the service date of the undelivered Order to Show Cause described above, as required by Local Rule 41-6. His failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address renders this case indistinguishable from Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th
Cir. 1988). There, in affirming the District Court's dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute, the Ninth Circuit observed that "[I]t would be absurd to require the District Court to hold a case in abeyance indefinitely just because it is unable, through the Plaintiff's own fault, to contact the plaintiff to determine if his reasons for not prosecuting his lawsuit are reasonable or not."
It is well established that a District Court has authority to dismiss an action because of failure to prosecute or to comply with Court Orders. See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386 (1962), (authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution necessary to prevent undue delay in disposing of pending cases and avoid congestion in Courts' calendars); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 936 F.2d ...