1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NORMAN GERALD DANIELS, III, No. 1:19-cv-01801 KES GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL

FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER

14 A. BAER, et al., AND FOR FAILURE TO KEEP COURT

APPRISED OF CURRENT ADDRESS

15 Defendants.

PARTIES’ OBJECTIONS DUE IN

16 FOURTEEN DAYS 17 18 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 19 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 23, 2019, Defendants removed this matter 20 to federal court. See ECF No. 1. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 For the reasons stated below, the undersigned will recommend that this matter be 23 dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address and for his 24 failure to obey a court order. The parties will be given fourteen days to file objections to this 25 order. 26 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 27 A. Adoption of Dispositive Findings and Recommendations 28 On March 24, 2022, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s SAC and found that it failed to 1 state a claim upon which relief could be granted. ECF No. 53 at 11. As a result, it recommended 2 that the matter be dismissed. Id. 3 On May 18, 2022, Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations were 4 docketed. ECF No. 58. Thereafter, on September 28, 2022, the District Judge who was assigned 5 to the matter at the time adopted the findings and recommendations. ECF Nos. 59, 60 (order 6 adopting and judgment). 7 B. Plaintiff’s Appeal; Circuit’s Affirmation In Part and Reversal In Part 8 In October of 2022, Plaintiff appealed the decision. See ECF Nos. 61, 62 (notice of 9 appeal and appeal dated 10/25/22). A considerable amount of time later, on June 30, 2025, the 10 Ninth Circuit issued its opinion which affirmed this Court’s ruling in part and reversed and 11 remanded in part. See ECF No. 68. 12 C. Order Regarding Current Address and Desire to Continue to Prosecute 13 Because almost three years had passed since Plaintiff filed his appeal in the Ninth Circuit, 14 the Court ordered Plaintiff to: (1) file a notice of current address with the Court, and (2) inform 15 the Court whether he still wished to prosecute this case. ECF No. 70 at 2. Plaintiff was given 16 fourteen days to comply with the Court’s order. Id. 17 D. Order Returned to Court Marked “Undeliverable, Paroled” 18 On August 7, 2025, the Court’s July 24, 2025, order was returned to it marked 19 “Undeliverable, Paroled.” See 8/7/25 docket entry. More than forty-five days have passed and 20 Plaintiff has neither filed a response to the Court’s order, nor has he requested an extension of 21 time to do so. Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s order in any way. 22 II. APPLICABLE LAW 23 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rules 110, 182(f) and 183(b) 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 permits this Court to dismiss a matter if a plaintiff fails 25 to prosecute or he fails to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Local Rule 110 26 also permits the imposition of sanctions when a party fails to comply with a court order. L.R. 27 110. 28 Local Rule 182(f) permits service to be effective service at a prior address if a party fails 1 to notify the Court and other parties of his address change. Id. Finally, Local Rule 183(b) gives a 2 party who appears in propria persona a period of time to file a notice of change of address if some 3 of his mail is returned to the Court. Id. 4 B. Malone Factors 5 The Ninth Circuit has clearly identified the factors to consider when dismissing a case for 6 failure to comply with a court order. It writes: 7 A district court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case 8 for failure to comply with a court order: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 9 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 10 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” 11 12 Malone v. United States Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Thompson v. 13 Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)). 14 III. DISCUSSION 15 A. Rule 41(b) and Local Rules 110, 182(f) and 183(b) Support Dismissal of This 16 Case 17 Although the docket indicates that Plaintiff’s copy of the order which directed him to file 18 a notice of current address and to inform the Court whether he wished to continue to prosecute 19 this case was returned, Plaintiff was properly served. It is a plaintiff’s responsibility to keep a 20 court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of 21 documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. The fact that Plaintiff failed to file 22 a notice of change of address with the Court after he had been paroled, by itself, warrants the 23 dismissal of this matter, in accord with Rule 41(b) and Local Rules 110 and 183(b). 24 B. Application of Malone Factors Supports the Dismissal of This Case 25 1. Expeditious Resolution of Litigation; Court’s Need to Manage Its Docket 26 Plaintiff has been given more than sufficient time to file a notice of change of address 27 with the Court, as well as to inform it whether he wishes to continue to prosecute this case. Yet, 28 he has failed to do either, nor has he contacted the Court to provide an exceptional reason for not 1 having done so. 2 The Eastern District Court has an unusually large caseload.1 “[T]he goal of fairly 3 dispensing justice . . . is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to 4 the processing of frivolous and repetitious requests.” Whitaker v. Superior Court of San 5 Francisco, 514 U.S. 208, 210 (1994) (brackets added) (citation omitted). Thus, it follows that 6 keeping this case on the Court’s docket when: (1) after almost three years since Plaintiff’s last 7 contact with the Court and after being paroled, Plaintiff has not made an independent effort to file 8 a notice of current address with the Court, and (2) Plaintiff has not informed the Court and 9 Defendants whether he wishes to continue to prosecute this case, such is not a good use of the 10 Court’s already taxed resources. Indeed, keeping this matter on the Court’s docket would stall a 11 quicker disposition of this case. Additionally, in fairness to the many other litigants who 12 currently have cases before the Court, no additional time should be spent on this matter. 13 14 2. Risk of Prejudice to Defendants 15 Furthermore, for the past five years and nine months, it is indisputable that Defendants 16 have spent time and resources defending against this matter. They were brought into this matter 17 by Plaintiff. Requiring them to remain in it and wait for Plaintiff to inform them where he is 18 located, or requiring Defendants to file a response to any order the Court may issue in response to 19 the Ninth Circuit’s remand would not serve the interests of judicial economy. As a result, there 20 will be no prejudice to anyone other than Plaintiff should the matter is dismissed. On the 21 contrary, dismissal will benefit Defendants because they will not have to continue to defend 22 themselves against Plaintiff’s complaint. 23 3. Availability of Less Drastic Sanctions; Favored Disposition of Cases on 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 Merits 2 Finally, given that Plaintiff has had sufficient time under the Local Rules – i.e., much 3 more than thirty days2 – to file a change of address with the Court, nor having informed the Court 4 of whether he wishes to continue to prosecute this case, there is no less drastic option than 5 dismissal. Although the disposition of cases on their merits is preferred, this matter cannot be 6 prosecuted without a current address for Plaintiff and without participation in this case by him, 7 nor can it be disposed of on its merits. 8 IV. CONCLUSION 9 For these reasons, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rules 10 110, 182(f) and 183(b), and having considered the Malone factors, the undersigned recommends 11 that this matter be dismissed without prejudice for failure to obey a court order and for Plaintiff’s 12 failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address. Despite the fact that Plaintiff cannot be 13 located, a period of fourteen days will be given for him to file objections to this order. However, 14 should this order be returned to the Court marked undeliverable before the end of the fourteen- 15 day period, the District Judge assigned to this action will likely dismiss this case immediately. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 17 1. This matter be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court 18 order and for his failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 41(b); Local Rule 110, and 183(b). 20 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to CLOSE this case. 21 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 22 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 23 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 24 objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 25 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and it shall not exceed fifteen pages. 26 The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the objections. To the extent that a party 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 wishes to refer to any exhibit, when possible, the party must reference the exhibit in the record by 2 its CM/ECF document and page number or reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed 3 in excess of the fifteen-page limit may be disregarded by the District Judge when conducting the 4 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C) review of the findings and recommendations. A party’s failure to file 5 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. See 6 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 7 Cir. 1991). 8 9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

11 Dated: September 25, 2025 /s/ Gary S. Austin

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12

13

14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28