Ryan Sullivan v. CDCR, et al.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RYAN SULLIVAN, Case No. 1:24-cv-00790-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CDCR, et al., REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 15 Defendants.

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 17 I. Background 18 Plaintiff Ryan Sullivan (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20 On November 13, 2025, the Court screened the complaint and found that it stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Degough, in his individual capacity, for deliberate indifference to conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment and for negligence. (ECF No. 7.) However, Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state any other cognizable claims for relief against any other defendant. (Id.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint or a notice that he did not wish to file a first amended complaint and was willing to proceed only on his claims against Defendant Degough within thirty days. (Id.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in a recommendation for dismissal of this action, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. (Id.) The screening was served on Plaintiff at his current address of record at Avenal State Prison in Avenal, California. On December 2, 2025, the Court’s order was returned as “Undeliverable, Return to Sender, Parolled [sic].” (See Docket.)

4 The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to this Court’s order has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address or otherwise communicated with the Court.

6 II. Discussion 7 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 10 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 11 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 12 for failure to prosecute.

13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also provides for dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute.1 15 Plaintiff’s address change was due no later than January 5, 2026. Plaintiff has failed to file a change of address, and he has not otherwise been in contact with the Court. The Court will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

18 “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.” 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).

25 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).

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., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

1 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. The third factor, risk of prejudice to the defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, as a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs against dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228 (citation omitted). More importantly, given the Court’s apparent inability to communicate with Plaintiff, there are no other reasonable alternatives available to 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.

13 III. Conclusion and Recommendation 14 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a District Judge to this action.

16 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).

18 *** 19 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.

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