1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK EDWARD STRICKLEN, Case No. 1:23-cv-00719-KES-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 13 v. PROSECUTE 14 NORDSTROM, FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant. 16 17 I. Background 18 Plaintiff Mark Edward Stricklen (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to

. 20 On October 6, 2025, the Court issued an order reassigning this case from Magistrate Judge 21 Gary S. Austin to the undersigned for all further proceedings. (ECF No. 14.) On October 22, 22 2025, that order was returned as “Undeliverable, Inactive, Discharged, Return to Sender, Refused, 23 Unable to Forward.” Plaintiff’s notice of change of address was therefore due on or before 24 November 21, 2025. Local Rule 183(b). 25 The Court’s October 10, 2025 order finding that Plaintiff may proceed on cognizable 26 claim and October 14, 2025, order finding service of the complaint appropriate were also returned 27 as “Undeliverable, Not at CSATF” on October 28, 2205. Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change 28 of address or otherwise communicated with the Court. 1 II. Discussion 2 Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of his 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, 6 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 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.1 10 Plaintiff’s address change was due no later than November 21, 2025. Plaintiff has failed 11 to file a change of address and he has not otherwise been in contact with the Court. “In 12 determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is required to 13 weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 14 court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 15 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” 16 Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and citation 17 omitted); accord Omstead v. Dell, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2010); In re 18 Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation,

(9th Cir. 2006). 19 These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be met in 20 order for a court to take action. In re PPA,

(citation omitted). 21 Given Plaintiff’s failure to update his address or communicate with the Court, the 22 expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of 23 dismissal.

. More importantly, given the Court’s apparent inability to communicate 24 with Plaintiff, there are no other reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to 25 prosecute this action and his failure to apprise the Court of his current address.

at 1228–29; 26 Carey,

. The Court will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed based 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 on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. 2 III. Conclusion and Recommendation 3 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without 4 prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 183(b). 5 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 6 Judge assigned to the case, under the provisions of

(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 7 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written 8 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 9 Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages or 10 include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page number if already in 11 the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limit may not be 12 considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 13 result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on 14 appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 15

(9th Cir. 1991)). 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17

18 Dated: December 1, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28