United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (DOC. 7, 16, 17) TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY
DEADLINE CLERK OF THE COURT TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT
K. OBERTO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dannie Rickman, is proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff filed this action in the United States
District Court in the Northern District of California on
October 6, 2017. On February 9, 2018, the action was
transferred to this Court. (Doc. 15.) The First Informational
Order and the order requesting that Plaintiff consent or
decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction issued that same day.
(Doc. 16.) Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis was granted shortly thereafter. (Doc. 17.)
However, all of these orders have been returned by the United
States Postal Service as “undeliverable” since
Plaintiff is “no longer in
custody.” A review of the docket of this case
reflects that orders issued by the Northern District were
also returned as undeliverable.
pro se plaintiff must keep the Court and opposing
parties informed of the party's correct address. Local
Rule 182(f). If a party moves to a different address without
filing and serving a notice of change of address, documents
served at a party's old address of record shall be deemed
received even if they are not actually received. Id.
If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff at the
address of record is returned by the United States Postal
Service as undeliverable, the order will not be served a
second time absent a notice of change of address. If a
pro se plaintiff's address is not updated within
sixty-three (63) days of mail being returned as
undeliverable, the case will be dismissed for failure to
prosecute. Local Rule 183(b).
Local Rules, corresponding with Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, provide,
“[f]ailure of counsel, or of a party to comply with . .
. any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by
the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent
power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District
courts have inherent power to control their dockets, ”
and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions,
including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing
Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.
1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on
a party's failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey
a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.
See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61
(9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an
order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S.
Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)
(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order);
Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir.
1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with
appears to have abandoned this action shortly after its
commencement. Whether Plaintiff did so mistakenly or
intentionally after being released from custody is
inconsequential. It matters not that the First Informational
Order was not delivered to Plaintiff as its mailing was a
courtesy extended by this Court to incarcerated parties who
may not otherwise have ready access to the Local Rules. It is
Plaintiff's responsibility as the party initiating this
action to comply with the Court's Local Rules which
require Plaintiff to keep his address of record updated. The
Court declines to expend its limited resources to screen or
otherwise address a case that Plaintiff has chosen to ignore.
the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS DISMISSAL of
this action, based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute
and comply with the Local Rules by keeping his address of
record updated. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Local Rule 183(b). The
Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to
Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
twenty-one (21) days after being
served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties
may file written objections with the Court. The document
should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to
file objections within the specified time may waive the right
to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v.
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
 See Doc. entries on
02/22/2018, 03/06/2018, and 04/12/2018.
See Doc. entries on
12/27/2017, 01/31/2018, and ...