Arnaldo Reyes v. Esteves, et al.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ARNALDO REYES, Case No. 1:23-cv-00150-FRS (BAM) (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ESTEVES, et al., REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 15 Defendants.

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE I. Background 18 Plaintiff Arnaldo Reyes (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21 On October 3, 2025, this matter was reassigned from Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin to Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone for all further proceedings. (ECF No. 16.) On October 23, 2025, the Court’s reassignment order was returned as “Undeliverable, Inactive.”

24 Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address or otherwise communicated with the Court.

26 /// /// /// II. Discussion 2 Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Local Rule 183(b) provides: 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 thirty (30) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice 7 for failure to prosecute.

8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also provides for dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute.1 10 Plaintiff’s address change was due no later than November 24, 2025. Plaintiff has failed to file a change of address and he has not otherwise been in contact with the Court. “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is required to weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 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 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.”

16 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); accord Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006).

19 These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 (citation omitted).

21 Given Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Court’s order, the expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Id. at 1227.

23 Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased litigating his case and updating his address. More importantly, given the Court’s apparent inability to communicate with Plaintiff, there are no other reasonable alternatives available to Courts may dismiss actions sua sponte under Rule 41(b) based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U. S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

1 address Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and his failure to apprise the Court of his current address. Id. at 1228–29; Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441.

3 III. Order and Recommendation 4 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a district judge to this action.

6 Furthermore, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without 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 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limit may not be considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 Dated: January 13, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE