1 2 3 4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CANDACE SMITH, Case No. 1:24-cv-00589-KES-BAM 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, et al., (Doc. 3) 15 Defendants. FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

16 17 18 I. Background 19 Plaintiff Candace Smith (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated 20 this civil action on May 16, 2024. (Doc. 1.) On July 2, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s 21 complaint pursuant to

(e)(2), and granted her leave to amend within thirty (30) 22 days. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff failed to file a timely amended complaint in compliance with the 23 Court’s order. Accordingly, on August 13, 2024, the Court issued findings and recommendations 24 that recommended this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s order, 25 for lack of jurisdiction, and for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be 26 granted. (Doc. 6.) Both the July 2, 2024 screening order (Doc. 4) and the findings and 27 recommendations (Doc. 6) were returned as undeliverable on September 3, 2024. 28 /// 1 II. Discussion 2 Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of her current address at all times. Local 3 Rule 183(b) provides:

4 Address Changes. A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and 5 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 6 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 7 prejudice for failure to prosecute. 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also provides for dismissal of an action for failure to 9 prosecute.1 10 Plaintiff’s address change was due no later than November 5, 2024. Plaintiff has failed to 11 file a change of address or otherwise update the Court. The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a 12 separate action on October 28, 2024, in the matter of Candace Smith v. Jimmy Carlise, et al., No. 13 1:24-cv-01317-BAM, which utilized a different address.2 Yet, like the instant action, the Court’s 14 most recent order in that action was returned as undeliverable on November 8, 2024. See Smith v. 15 Carlise, No. 1:24-cv-01317-BAM. 16 “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is 17 required to weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 18 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 19 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 20 sanctions.” Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and 21 citation omitted); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation,

, 22 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions 23 that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re PPA,

(citation 24 omitted). 25 Given Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Court’s orders, the expeditious resolution of 26 1 Courts may dismiss actions sua sponte under Rule 41(b) based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Hells Canyon 27 Pres. Council v. U. S. Forest Serv.,

(9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). 2 A court may take judicial notice of its own records. United States v. Wilson,

(9th Cir. 1980) 28 (“[A] court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases.”). 1 litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Id. at 1227. The 2 third factor, risk of prejudice to the defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, as a presumption 3 of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. 4 Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal 5 because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 6 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to 7 move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that 8 direction,” which is the case here. In re PPA,

(citation omitted). More 9 importantly, given the Court’s apparent inability to communicate with Plaintiff, there are no other 10 reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and her 11 failure to apprise the Court of her current address.

at 1228–29; Carey,

. The 12 Court will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to 13 prosecute this action. 14 III. Conclusion and Recommendation 15 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations issued 16 on August 13, 2024, are VACATED. (Doc. 6.) Furthermore, the Court HEREBY 17 RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Fed. R. 18 Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 183(b). 19 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 20 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title

(b)(1). Within 21 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 22 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 23 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 24 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 25 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 26 limit may not be considered. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 27 /// 28 /// 1 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 2 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 3 v. Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 1991)). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

6 Dated: November 13, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28