United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER RE: DISMISSAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
MARGARET M. MORROW, District Judge.
On December 7, 2012, Avanti Ezzani-Kotun ("Plaintiff") filed a pro se Civil Rights Complaint ("Complaint") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 3.) On February 21, 2013, the City of Inglewood and Inglewood Police Department (collectively "Defendants") filed an Answer to the Complaint. (ECF No. 8.) On March 13, 2013, the Court issued its Order Re: Discovery and Motions. (ECF No. 10.)
On November 5, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment ("MSJ"), along with supporting declarations and exhibits, and a separate Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law. (ECF No. 14.) On November 8, 2013, the Court issued a notice to Plaintiff pursuant to Rand v. Rowland , 154 F.3d 952, 961 n.8 (9th Cir. 1998), Klingele v. Eikenberry , 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988), and T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc., v. P. Elec. Contractors Assoc. , 809 F.2d 626, 630-31 (9th Cir. 1987). At that time, Plaintiff was given until December 13, 2013, to file an Opposition to Defendants' MSJ. (ECF No. 15.)
On November 29, 2013, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file his Opposition. (ECF No. 16.) On December 6, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff's request for an extension and allowed him until January 10, 2014, to file an Opposition. (ECF No. 17.) On January 21, 2014, Plaintiff's copy of the December 6, 2013, order was returned undelivered. (ECF No. 18.) On January 29, 2014, the Court issued an order allowing Plaintiff until February 28, 2014, to file an Opposition to the MSJ, informing Plaintiff of his obligation to notify the Court of his current mailing address, and cautioning him that failure to file an Opposition to the MSJ may be deemed consent to the granting of the motion. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff did not file an Opposition to the MSJ.
On March 7, 2014, the Court issued its Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge ("Report and Recommendation"), recommending that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be granted and that Judgment be entered dismissing the Complaint with prejudice. (ECF Nos. 20, 21.) The Report and Recommendation was send to Plaintiff's previous address at the California Rehabilitation Center in Norco. However, on November 29, 2013, Plaintiff informed the Court of his new address at the RJ Donovan Correctional Facility, 480 Alta Road, San Diego, California 92179. (ECF No. 16.) As a result, the Court re-sent the Notice of Filing, the Report and Recommendation, and an Amended Notice of Filing to Plaintiff at RJ Donovan. (ECF No. 20-22.) On March 25 and 27, 2014, the aforementioned documents were returned to the Court as undeliverable with the notation "RETURN TO SENDER-Inactive-2/13/14-Discharged." (ECF Nos. 23-26.) To date, Plaintiff has not provided the Court with his current address and has not otherwise communicated with the Court.
The Local Rules of this Court provide in pertinent part that:
Dismissal - Failure of Pro Se Plaintiff to Keep Court Apprised of Current Address. A party proceeding pro se shall keep the Court and opposing parties 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 Postal Service, 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.
C.D. Cal. R. 41-6.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that dismissal of this action is warranted for failure to prosecute.
It is well established that a district court has authority to dismiss a plaintiff's action because of his or her 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, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (holding that a court's authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution is necessary to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the district courts); Ferdik v. Bonzelet , 963 ...