Wiley v. Goodman

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

          JENNIFER L. THURSTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Anthony Wiley, Sr. asserts the defendants are liable for a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, hate crime against a disabled American, judicial misconduct, judicial corruption, and RICO violation. (See generally Doc. 1) Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Local Rules and failed to prosecute this action, the Court recommends the matter be DISMISSED.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on October 7, 2019. (Doc. 1) The Court noted that the same date as Plaintiff filed the instant action, he filed a different complaint against Robert Goodman, the Bakersfield Police Department, and the Kern County Superior Court, initiating No. 1:19-cv-001406-AWI-JLT. The Court reviewed the complaints in both actions and found the parties in the two actions are the same, the facts alleged are similar, the claims to do not significantly differ, and the relief requested was the same. Therefore, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as duplicative. (Doc. 4)

         On October 31, 2019, the Court's order was returned as “Undeliverable, Not Deliverable as Addressed” by the United States Postal Service. On November 1, 2019, the Court attempted re-service at a different address for Plaintiff, based upon his address identified in No. 1:19-cv-01406-AWI-JLT. However, this was also returned as “Undeliverable, Attempted- Not Known” by the United States Postal Service.” To date, Plaintiff's correct address remains unknown, and he has not identified a proper mailing address for the Court.

         II. Requirements of the Local Rules

         Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address: “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.” LR 183(b). Because more than 63 days have passed since the first document was returned as undeliverable on October 31, 2019, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Local Rules.

         III. Failure to Prosecute

         “ 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 or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 2995) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rules); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

         In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the Local Rules, or failure to obey a court order, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(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.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831.

         IV. Discussion and Analysis

         To determine whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Local Rules, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(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.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Thomspon, 782 F.2d at 831.

         A. Public interest and the Court's docket

         In the case at hand, the public's interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court's interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing that district courts have inherent interest in managing their dockets without being subject to noncompliant litigants). This Court cannot, and will not hold, this case in abeyance based upon Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Local Rules and failure to take action to continue prosecution in a timely manner. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining a plaintiff has ...