Young v. Spokane County

FILED IN THE 2 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON May 30, 2023 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON STEVEN K. YOUNG, NO: 2:23-CV-00030-RMP 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v. PURSUANT TO LCivR 41(b)(2) SPOKANE COUNTY, CITY OF SPOKANE, MAYOR NADINE WOODWARD, COMMISSIONER MARY KUNEY, SHERIFF OZZIE KNEZOVICH, MAINTENANCE JOHN DOES 1-3, ACTING UNDERSHERIFF JOHN DOE and FLOOR SHIFT OFFICERS JOHN DOES 1-3, 15 Defendants.

16 Plaintiff Steven K. Young, along with two co-Plaintiffs, filed a pro se civil rights complaint on January 31, 2023. ECF No. 1. The Court severed the claims of each Plaintiff and instructed each one to proceed separately in his own action.

19 ECF No. 4. The Court then instructed Plaintiff, a prisoner at Spokane County Detention Services, to properly seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, or to pay the $402.00 filing fee to commence this action as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). ECF No. 5. That Order, addressed to Plaintiff at Spokane County Detention Services, was returned as undeliverable on March 30, 2023, with notations of “deceased,” and “unable to forward.” ECF No. 6.

5 Local Civil Rule 41(b)(2) requires a pro se litigant to keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his current mailing address. If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff is returned by the Postal Service, he has sixty (60) days to notify the Court and opposing parties of his current address or the Court may dismiss the action. LCivR 41(b)(2).

10 The Court has an interest in managing its docket and in the prompt resolution of civil matters. See Destfino 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 a claim for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court order, including the public’s interest in expeditious resolution, the court’s need to manage docket, and the risk of prejudice to defendants). Plaintiff’s mail has been returned; no one has asserted a right to proceed on Plaintiff’s behalf; and the Court has not been apprised of a current address.

19 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to LCivR 41(b)(2). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this Order could not be taken in good faith and would lack any arguable basis in law or fact.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order, enter judgment, forward copies to Plaintiff at the address provided, and CLOSE the file.

6 DATED May 30, 2023.

7 s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON 8 Senior United States District Judge