stating 2024 Biennial Judgeship Survey recommended request for four additional permanent 28 judgeships for Eastern District of California
How later courts described this case
- stating 2024 Biennial Judgeship Survey recommended request for four additional permanent 28 judgeships for Eastern District of California
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 RANDY MAESTAS, No. 1:23-cv-00668 GSA (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION
13 v.
ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL
14 OFFICE DEPARTMENT APPEALS WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S
CORRECTION BOARD, FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE
15 TO KEEP COURT APPRISED OF HIS
Defendant. CURRENT ADDRESS
16
(ECF No. 7)
17
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS DUE IN
18 FOURTEEN DAYS
19
20 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this
21 civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United
22 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
23 For the reasons stated below, the undersigned will recommend that this matter be
24 dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address.
25 Plaintiff will have fourteen days to file objections to this order.
26 I. RELEVANT FACTS
27 On May 2, 2023, Plaintiff’s complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis were
28 docketed. ECF Nos. 1, 2. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
1 was granted. ECF No. 5.
2 On March 17, 2025, Plaintiff’s complaint was screened. ECF No. 7. In the screening
3 order the Court found that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
4 granted. Id. at 8. As a result, Plaintiff was given the opportunity to file an amended complaint.
5 Id. He was given thirty days to do so. Id.
6 On April 8, 2025, the Court’s order which gave Plaintiff the opportunity to file an
7 amended complaint was returned marked “Undeliverable, Discharged and/or Inactive.”
8 Furthermore, a search for Plaintiff on the California Department of Corrections and
9 Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) website under his inmate ID number “BR0576” yields a “No Results”
10 response. See https://ciris.mt.cdcr.ca.gov/search, then input Plaintiff’s Inmate No. “BR0576”
11 (last visited 6/2/25).
12 In sum, Plaintiff is likely no longer in custody at the CDCR. To date Plaintiff has not
13 filed a change of address with the Court, nor has he requested an extension of time to do so. Nor
14 has Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
15 II. APPLICABLE LAW
16 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rules 182(f) and 183(b)
17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 permits this Court to dismiss a matter if a plaintiff fails
18 to prosecute or he fails to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Local Rule
19 182(f) permits service to be effective service at a prior address if a party fails to notify the Court
20 and other parties of his address change. Id. Finally, Local Rule 183(b) gives a party who appears
21 in propria persona a period of time to file a notice of change of address if some of his mail is
22 returned to the Court. Id.
23 B. Malone Factors
24 The Ninth Circuit has clearly identified the factors to consider when dismissing a case for
25 failure to comply with a court order. It writes:
26
A district court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case
27
for failure to comply with a court order: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious
28 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of
1 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on
their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.”
2
3
Malone v. United States Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Thompson v.
4
Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)).
5
III. DISCUSSION
6
A. Rule 41(b) and Local Rules 182(f) and 183(b) Support Dismissal of This Case
7
Although the docket indicates that Plaintiff’s copy of the order that gave him the
8
opportunity to file an amended complaint was returned to the Court, Plaintiff was properly
9
served. It is a plaintiff’s responsibility to keep a court apprised of his current address at all times.
10
Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully
11
effective. Furthermore, the fact that Plaintiff has failed to file a notice of change of address with
12
the Court warrants the dismissal of this matter in accord with Rule 41(b) and Local Rule and
13
183(b).
14
B. Application of Malone Factors Supports the Dismissal of This Case
15
1. Expeditious Resolution of Litigation; Court’s Need to Manage Its Docket
16
Plaintiff has been given sufficient time to file a notice of change of address as well as to
17
file an amended complaint. Yet, he has failed to do either, nor has he contacted the Court to
18
provide exceptional reasons for not having done so.
19
The Eastern District Court has an unusually large caseload.1 “[T]he goal of fairly
20
dispensing justice . . . is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to
21
the processing of frivolous and repetitious requests.” Whitaker v. Superior Court of San
22
Francisco, 514 U.S. 208, 210 (1994) (brackets added) (citation omitted). Thus, it follows that
23
24
1 The Eastern District of California carries one of the largest and most heavily weighted
25
caseloads in the nation. See Office of the Clerk, United States District Court, Eastern District of
California, 2024 Annual Report, “Weighted Filings,” p. 35 (2024) (“[O]ur weighted caseload far
26
exceeds the national average . . . ranking us fourth in the nation and first in the Ninth Circuit.”).
27 This problem is compounded by a shortage of jurists to review its pending matters. See generally
id. (stating 2024 Biennial Judgeship Survey recommended request for four additional permanent
28 judgeships for Eastern District of California).
1 keeping this case on the Court’s docket when Plaintiff has not attempted to file a notice of current
2 address with the Court or to file an amended complaint is not a good use of the Court’s already
3 taxed resources. Indeed, keeping this matter on the Court’s docket would stall a quicker
4 disposition of this case. Additionally, in fairness to the many other litigants who currently have
5 cases before the Court, no additional time should be spent on this matter.
6 2. Risk of Prejudice to Defendants
7 Furthermore, because viable Defendants have yet to be identified and served in this case,
8 no one has put time and effort into defending against it. As a result, there will be no prejudice to
9 anyone other than Plaintiff if the matter is dismissed. On the contrary, dismissal will benefit any
10 potentially viable Defendants because they will not have to defend themselves against Plaintiff’s
11 complaint.
12 3. Availability of Less Drastic Sanctions; Favored Disposition of Cases on
13 Merits
14 Finally, given that Plaintiff has had sufficient time under the Local Rules to file a change
15 of address,2 without any notice from Plaintiff of his new address, there is no less drastic option
16 than dismissal. Although the disposition of cases on their merits is preferred, this matter cannot
17 be prosecuted without a current address for Plaintiff and without participation by Plaintiff, nor
18 can it be disposed of on its merits.
19 IV. CONCLUSION
20 For these reasons, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rules
21 182(f) and 183(b), and having considered the Malone factors, the undersigned recommends that
22 this matter be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff will have fourteen
23 days to file a response to these findings and recommendations.
24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a
25 District Judge to this matter.
26 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED without prejudice
27
2 In 2025, the period that a litigant appearing in propria person has to file a notice of change of
28 address was reduced from sixty-three days to thirty days. See Local Rule 183(b).
1 for failure to prosecute and for failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address. See Fed.
2 R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 183(b).
3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
4 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
5 after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections
6 with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings
7 and Recommendations,” and it shall not exceed fifteen pages.
8 The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the objections. To the extent that Plaintiff
9 wishes to refer to any exhibit, when possible, he must reference the exhibit in the record by its
10 CM/ECF document and page number or reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in
11 excess of the fifteen-page limit may be disregarded by the District Judge when conducting the 28
12 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C) review of the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff’s failure to file
13 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. See
14 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th
15 Cir. 1991).
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19 Dated: June 5, 2025 /s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28