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-01317-KES-BAM 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 JIMMY CARLISE, et al, 15 Defendant. FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

16 17 18 I. Background 19 Plaintiff Candace Smith (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 20 action on October 28, 2024. (Doc. 1.) On October 29, 2024, the Court issued its order granting 21 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.) The Court’s order granting 22 Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was returned as undeliverable on November 8, 23 2024. On November 18, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 4.)1 The Court 24 subsequently vacated the hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. 7.) The Court’s order 25 vacating the hearing was returned as undeliverable. 26

27 1 The Court notes that Defendants’ motion to dismiss does not appear to be properly served upon Plaintiff, as the proof of service contains an address for Plaintiff that differs from the address on 28 the docket. (See Doc. 4 at 4) 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.2 10 Plaintiff’s address change was due no later than January 10, 2025. Plaintiff has failed to 11 file a change of address or otherwise update the Court. 12 “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is 13 required to weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 14 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 15 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 16 sanctions.” Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and 17 citation omitted); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation,

, 18 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions 19 that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re PPA,

(citation 20 omitted). 21 Given Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Court’s orders, the expeditious resolution of 22 litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal.

. The 23 third factor, risk of prejudice to the defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, as a presumption 24 of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. 25 Air West,

(9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal 26 because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

, 643 27 2 Courts may dismiss actions sua sponte under Rule 41(b) based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 28 Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U. S. Forest Serv.,

(9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). 1 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to 2 move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that 3 direction,” which is the case here. In re PPA,

(citation omitted). More 4 importantly, given the Court’s apparent inability to communicate with Plaintiff, there are no other 5 reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and her 6 failure to apprise the Court of her current address.

at 1228–29; Carey,

. The 7 Court will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to 8 prosecute this action. See Smith v. Cmty. Hosp., No. 1:24-cv-00589-KES-BAM,

5111778, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2024) (dismissing for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute in another 10 matter where Plaintiff failed to file a notice of change of address). 11 III. Conclusion and Recommendation 12 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed based on 13 Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 183(b). 14 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 15 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title

(b)(1). Within 16 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 17 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 18 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 19 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 20 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 21 limit may not be considered. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 22 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 23 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 24 v. Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 1991)). 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26

27 Dated: January 21, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28