United States District Court, E.D. California
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 ...