Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends dismissing Ryan Sullivan’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to maintain a current address. The magistrate judge also directs the Clerk to randomly assign a district judge and advises the parties of a fourteen-day period to file objections.
Holdings
- The factors governing dismissal for lack of prosecution favored recommending dismissal without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to respond to the court's order, failed to update his address, and thereby impeded prosecution of the action.
Questions Presented
- Whether the action should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order after Plaintiff failed to update his address or respond to the court's screening order.
- Whether the factors governing dismissal for lack of prosecution favored dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 183(b).
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (8)
- Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-1441 (9th Cir. 1988)(followed)
- Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
- In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226-1229 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
- Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005)(followed)
- Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976)(followed)
- Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
- Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-839 (9th Cir. 2014)(followed)
- Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…