Jones v. Spokane County Jail

FILED IN THE 2 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Jun 02, 2020 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON DEREK JONES, NO: 2:19-CV-365-RMP 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 9 v. PREJUDICE SPOKANE COUNTY JAIL and WASHINGTON STATE Defendants.

13 By Order filed March 31, 2020, the Court directed Plaintiff Derek Jones to show cause why his application to proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied and this action dismissed for noncompliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). ECF No. 6. Plaintiff filed this civil action while incarcerated at Spokane County Detention Services. ECF No. 1.

18 By letter dated October 24, 2019, the District Court Clerk directed Plaintiff to provide a certified copy of his trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the six months immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.

21 ECF No. 4. This letter was returned as undeliverable on November 5, 2019. ECF No. 5. The Order issued on March 31, 2020, was also returned as undeliverable.

2 ECF No. 7.

3 The Court may dismiss an action if mail directed to a pro se plaintiff has been returned by the Postal Service and the plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty (60) days thereafter of his current mailing address.

6 LCivR 41(b)(2). The Court has an interest in managing its docket and in the prompt resolution of civil matters. See Destifino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 959 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming district court’s inherent power to control its docket); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642−44 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing factors to consider in dismissing claims for failure to prosecute or comply with court order, including public’s interest in expeditious resolution, court’s need to manage docket, and risk of prejudice to defendants).

13 Plaintiff has not kept the Court apprised of his current address and has filed nothing further in this action. More than sixty (60) days have elapsed since Plaintiff’s mail was returned to this Court as undeliverable. Accordingly, the Court is empowered to dismiss Plaintiff’s case for failure to keep the Court advised of his current mailing address. LCivR 41(b)(2).

18 / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to LCivR 41(b)(2).

3 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order, enter judgment, provide copies to Plaintiff at his last known address and close the file. The Court certifies any appeal of this dismissal would not be taken in good faith.

7 DATED June 2, 2020. s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON 8 United States District Judge