1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ABDUL BANGURA, No. 1:22-cv-00237 GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 13 v. ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL 14 FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 12) 16

17 Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under

. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 For the reasons stated below, the undersigned will recommend that this matter be 21 dismissed for failure to prosecute. Moreover, given that no current address exists for Plaintiff, 22 and no Defendant has been served, a period to file objections to this order will not be given. 23 I. RELEVANT FACTS 24 On February 22, 2022, Plaintiff’s complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis 25 were docketed in the Sacramento Division of this Court. ECF Nos. 1, 2. Shortly thereafter, on 26 February 25, 2022, the matter was transferred to this division. ECF Nos. 4 & 5. Also on 27 February 25, 2022, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted, and the order 28 1 doing so was sent to Plaintiff at his address of record. ECF No. 6 (see order with attached NEF). 2 As a result, the matter is at the screening stage of the proceedings. 3 In July 2024, because a considerable amount of time had passed between the Court’s last 4 communication with Plaintiff in 2023, prior to screening the complaint, the Court ordered 5 Plaintiff to file a notice of current address with the Court. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff was given seven 6 days to file the notice.

7 On August 2, 2024, the Court’s order directing Plaintiff to file the notice of current 8 address was returned to it marked “Undeliverable, Return to Sender, Paroled.” See 8/2/24 docket 9 entry (mail returned entry). To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s order, nor has he 10 requested an extension of time to do so. In addition, the record does not indicate that the Court’s 11 order was able to be forwarded to Plaintiff at a different address. See generally Docket. 12 II. APPLICABLE LAW 13 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rules 110, 182(f) and 183(b) 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 permits this Court to dismiss a matter if a plaintiff fails 15 to prosecute or he fails to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Local Rule 110 16 also permits the imposition of sanctions when a party fails to comply with a court order. L.R. 17 110. 18 Local Rule 182(f) permits service to be effective service at a prior address if a party fails 19 to notify the Court and other parties of his address change.

Finally, Local Rule 183(b) gives a 20 party who appears in propria persona a period of time to file a notice of change of address if some 21 of his mail is returned to the Court.

22 B. Malone Factors 23 The Ninth Circuit has clearly identified the factors to consider when dismissing a case for 24 failure to comply with a court order. It writes: 25 A district court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case 26 for failure to comply with a court order: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 27 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 28 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” 1 2 Malone v. United States Postal Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Thompson v. 3 Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)). 4 III. DISCUSSION 5 A. Rule 41(b) and Local Rules 110, 182(f) and 183(f) Support Dismissal of This 6 Case 7 Although the docket indicates that Plaintiff’s copy of the order directing him to file a 8 notice of current address with the Court was returned, Plaintiff was properly served. It is a 9 plaintiff’s responsibility to keep a court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to 10 Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 11 Furthermore, the fact that Plaintiff failed to file a notice of change of address with the Court – 12 either on his own or as ordered – warrants the dismissal of this matter, in accord with Rule 41(b) 13 and Local Rules 110 and 183(b). 14 B. Application of Malone Factors Supports the Dismissal of This Case 15 1. Expeditious Resolution of Litigation; Court’s Need to Manage Its Docket 16 Plaintiff has been given more than ample time to file a notice of change of address as well 17 as to respond to the Court’s order that specifically directed him to file one. Yet, he has failed to 18 do either, nor has he contacted the Court to provide an exceptional reason for not having done so. 19 The Eastern District Court has an unusually large caseload.1 “[T]he goal of fairly 20 dispensing justice . . . is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to 21 the processing of frivolous and repetitious requests.” Whitaker v. Superior Court of San 22 Francisco,

(1994) (brackets added) (citation omitted). Thus, it follows that 23

24 1 The Eastern District of California carries one of the largest and most heavily weighted caseloads in the nation. See Office of the Clerk, United States District Court, Eastern District of 25 California, 2024 Annual Report, “Weighted Filings,” p. 35 (2024) (“[O]ur weighted caseload far exceeds the national average . . . ranking us fourth in the nation and first in the Ninth Circuit.”). 26 This problem is compounded by a shortage of jurists to review its pending matters. See generally 27

(stating 2024 Biennial Judgeship Survey recommended request for four additional permanent judgeships for Eastern District of California). 28 1 keeping this case on the Court’s docket when Plaintiff has not attempted to file a notice of current 2 address with the Court, even after having been given an opportunity to do so, is not a good use of 3 the Court’s already taxed resources. Indeed, keeping this matter on the Court’s docket would stall 4 a quicker disposition of this case. Additionally, in fairness to the many other litigants who 5 currently have cases before the Court, no additional time should be spent on this matter. 6 2. Risk of Prejudice to Defendants 7 Furthermore, because viable Defendants have yet to be identified and served in this case, 8 no one has put time and effort into defending against it. As a result, there will be no prejudice to 9 anyone other than Plaintiff if the matter is dismissed. On the contrary, dismissal will benefit any 10 potentially viable Defendants because they will not have to defend themselves against Plaintiff’s 11 complaint. 12 3. Availability of Less Drastic Sanctions; Favored Disposition of Cases on 13 Merits 14 Finally, given that this case has remained on the Court’s docket for almost seven months 15 since its order directing Plaintiff to file a notice of current address with the Court issued, without 16 Plaintiff’s notice, there is no less drastic option than dismissal. Although the disposition of cases 17 on their merits is preferred, this matter cannot be prosecuted without a current address for 18 Plaintiff and without participation by Plaintiff, nor can it be disposed of on its merits. 19 IV. CONCLUSION 20 For these reasons, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rules 21 110, 182(f) and 183(b), and having considered the Malone factors, the undersigned recommends 22 that this matter be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Because Plaintiff cannot 23 be located and because no viable Defendants have been identified and served, no period of time to 24 file objections will be given. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a 26 District Judge to this matter. 27 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED without prejudice 28 for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 183(b). 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2

3 Dated: February 26, 2025 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4

5

6

7

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