1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OMAR MARTIN, Case No. 1:22-cv-01582-KES-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 13 v. PROSECUTE 14 KNIGHT, et al., FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. Background 18 Plaintiff Omar Martin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to

. This action proceeds on 20 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendant Knight for deliberate indifference to a 21 medical need for the incident on April 10, 2020, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 22 On January 26, 2024, Defendant Knight filed a motion for summary on the ground that 23 Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (ECF No. 40.) On June 17, 24 2025, the Court issued findings and recommendations that recommended denial of Defendant 25 Knight’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 48.) The findings and recommendations 26 served on Plaintiff were returned as “Undeliverable, Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as 27 Addressed, Unable to Forward” on June 25, 2025. Plaintiff’s notice of change of address was 28 therefore due on or before July 25, 2025. Local Rule 183(b). Plaintiff has not filed a notice of 1 change of address or otherwise communicated with the Court. 2 On September 15, 2025, the District Judge adopted the findings and recommendations and 3 denied Defendant Knight’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 49.) 4 II. Discussion 5 Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Local 6 Rule 183(b) provides:

7 Address Changes. A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and 8 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, 9 and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within thirty (30) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without 10 prejudice for failure to prosecute. 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also provides for dismissal of an action for failure to 12 prosecute.1 13 As noted, Plaintiff’s address change was due no later than July 25, 2025. Plaintiff has 14 failed to file a change of address, and he has not otherwise been in contact with the Court. 15 “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is 16 required to weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 17 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 18 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 19 sanctions.” Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and 20 citation omitted); accord Omstead v. Dell, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2010); In re 21 Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation,

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

(citation omitted). 24 Given Plaintiff’s failure to update his address or communicate with the Court, the 25 expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of 26 dismissal. In re PPA,

. More importantly, given the Court’s apparent inability 27 1 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 to communicate with Plaintiff, there are no other reasonable alternatives available to address 2 Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and his failure to apprise the Court of his current 3 address.

at 1228–29; Carey,

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

(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 10 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written 11 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 12 Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages or 13 include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page number if already in 14 the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limit may not be 15 considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 16 result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on 17 appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 18

(9th Cir. 1991)). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20

21 Dated: September 17, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22

23

24 25 26 27 28