Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fuentes v. Brown

United States District Court, Eastern District of California

January 16, 2015

VALENTIN FUENTES, Plaintiff,
v.
JERRY BROWN, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Valentin Fuentes ("Plaintiff), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 19, 2013. Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 3.)

On October 22, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs complaint with leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 10.) The order was returned by the United States Postal Service as Undeliverable, Inactive on November 5, 2014.

Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Local Rule 183(b) provides in relevant part:

If mail directed to a 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 sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also provides for dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute.[1]

More than sixty-three days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to file a notice of change of address and has not otherwise been in contact with the Court. "In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is required to weigh several factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions." Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); accord Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 (citation omitted).

This case has been pending since June 2013, and the expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court's need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Id. at 1227. More importantly, given the Court's inability to communicate with Plaintiff, there are no other reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiffs failure to prosecute this action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228-29; Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441.

Accordingly, this action is FIEREBY DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on Plaintiffs failure to prosecute. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Local Rule 183(b). This terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.