1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARLON PALMER, No. 1:23-cv-01004 KES GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. Doc. 11 14 JOHN ZANONI, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state 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 On July 24, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to obey 22 court orders and failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address as required by Local 23 Rule 183(b). Doc. 11. Specifically, the magistrate judge found that the relevant factors—that is, 24 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; the court’s need to manage its docket; 25 the risk of prejudice to the defendants; the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 26 merits; and the availability of less drastic sanctions—weigh in favor of dismissing the case 27 without prejudice as a sanction for plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure to comply 28 with the local rules.

at 3–4 (applying Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 1 1987) (failure to comply with a court order)); see also Henderson v. Duncan,

, 2 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (failure to prosecute); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) 3 (failure to prosecute based on noncompliance with local rule). The findings and 4 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 5 to be filed within fourteen days after service. Doc. 11 at 5. To date plaintiff has not filed 6 objections to the findings and recommendations, and the time to do so has passed. 7 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 8 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds that the conclusion 9 that the relevant factors support dismissal of this case without prejudice for failure to obey court 10 orders and failure to comply with Local Rule 183(b) is supported by the record. 11 As the findings and recommendations correctly note, the first two factors weigh in favor 12 of dismissal. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The public’s 13 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”). The public’s interest in 14 expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of 15 dismissal because the Court cannot effectively manage its docket, nor can the litigation be 16 expeditiously resolved, as plaintiff has failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address. 17 See Carey,

(“A party, not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the 18 court apprised of any changes in his mailing address.”). 19 As to the third factor, the risk of prejudice to the defendant also weighs in favor of 20 dismissal, given that unreasonable delay in a case gives rise to a presumption of injury to the 21 defendant. See, e.g., Anderson v. Air W., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1976); see also Carey, 22

(rejecting argument that an approximately two-month delay was not 23 unreasonable where plaintiff failed to keep court apprised of current address). While the fourth 24 consideration, that public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits, generally weighs 25 against dismissal, here it lends little support “to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case 26 toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.” In re 27 Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (citations 28 omitted). 1 Finally, there is little else available to the Court that would constitute a satisfactory lesser 2 || sanction given the Court’s apparent inability to communicate with plaintiff. See, e.g., Gaston v. 3 | Marean,

, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 20, 2020) (“[G]iven the Court’s apparent 4 | inability to communicate with Plaintiff, there are no other reasonable alternatives available to 5 || address Plaintiffs failure to prosecute this action.”). Without plaintiff having updated his current 6 | address, this matter cannot be prosecuted, nor can it be disposed of on its merits. 7 Accordingly: 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued July 24, 2025, Doc. 11, are adopted; 9 2. This matter is dismissed without prejudice for failure to obey court orders and 10 failure to comply with Local Rule 183(b); and 11 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 12 13 14 | IIS SO ORDERED. _ 15 Dated: _ September 15, 2025 4h 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28