1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANTHONY ALBERT BAGGETT, Case No. 1:24-cv-01024-BAM (PC) 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 9 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10 CITY OF FRESNO, et al., REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 11 Defendants. FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 12 13 I. Background 14 Plaintiff Anthony Albert Baggett (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in 15 forma pauperis in this civil rights action under

. Individuals detained pursuant 16 to California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners 17 within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey,

, 1140 18 (9th Cir. 2000). This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 6, 2024, Plaintiff initiated this action in the Sacramento Division of the United 21 States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) The case was 22 transferred to the Fresno Division on August 28, 2024, and new case documents were issued by 23 the Fresno Division the same date. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) On August 29, 2024, the Court issued an 24 order striking Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for lack of signature and directing Plaintiff to 25 file a signed first amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 8.) The Court also issued an 26 order granting Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 9.) 27 On September 11, 2024, the Court’s August 29, 2024 orders directing Plaintiff to file a 28 signed first amended complaint and granting Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis 1 were returned as “Undeliverable, Return to Sender, Not at Facility.” On September 13, 2024, the 2 Fresno Division new case documents were returned as “Undeliverable, Not at Facility.” 3 Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address or otherwise communicated with the 4 Court. 5 II. Discussion 6 Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Local 7 Rule 183(b) provides:

8 Address Changes. A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and 9 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 10 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 11 prejudice for failure to prosecute. 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also provides for dismissal of an action for failure to 13 prosecute.1 14 Plaintiff’s address change was due no later than November 13, 2024. Plaintiff has failed 15 to file a change of address and he has not otherwise been in contact with the Court. “In 16 determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is required to 17 weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 18 court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 19 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” 20 Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and citation 21 omitted); accord Omstead v. Dell, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2010); In re 22 Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation,

(9th Cir. 2006). 23 These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be met in 24 order for a court to take action. In re PPA,

(citation omitted). 25 Given Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Court’s order, the expeditious resolution of 26 litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal.

. 27 1 Courts may dismiss actions sua sponte under Rule 41(b) based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Hells Canyon 28 Pres. Council v. U. S. Forest Serv.,

(9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). 1 More importantly, given the Court’s apparent inability to communicate with Plaintiff, there are no 2 other reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and his 3 failure to apprise the Court of his current address.

at 1228–29; Carey,

. The 4 Court will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to 5 prosecute this action. 6 III. Conclusion and Recommendation 7 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a 8 district judge to this action. 9 Furthermore, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without 10 prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 183(b). 11 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 12 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title

(b)(1). Within 13 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 14 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 15 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 16 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 17 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 18 limit may not be considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 19 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 20 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 21 v. Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 1991)). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23

24 Dated: December 2, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25

26 27 28