Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Cabrera v. Barrett

United States District Court, E.D. California

January 14, 2020

OMAR CABRERA, Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES MARTIN BARRETT, Defendant.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

          BARBARA A. McAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. Background

         Plaintiff Omar Cabrera (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action on August 30, 2019. (Doc. No. 1.) On October 10, 2019, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma paupers. (Doc. No. 3.) On October 29, 2019, the Court's order was returned as undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address or otherwise communicated with the Court.

         II. Discussion

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

Address Changes. A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his or her 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.

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

         According to the Court's docket, Plaintiff's address change was due no later than December 31, 2019. Plaintiff has failed to file a change of address and he 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).

         The expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court's need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1227. More importantly, given the Court's apparent inability to communicate with Plaintiff, there are no other reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action and his failure to apprise the Court of his current address. Id. at 1228-29; Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441. The Court will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action.

         III. Conclusion and Recommendation

         Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Local Rule 183(b).

         These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate's factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

         IT IS ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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