1 2

JS-6

3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BEAUX SCHROEDER, Case No. 2:20-CV-09816 AB (KES)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

13 v. WANT OF PROSECUTION

14 PAMONA POLICE OFFICER, 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 On October 23, 2020, Beaux Schroeder (“Plaintiff”), an inmate in state 19 custody, filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that a Pomona 20 Sheriff Officer used excessive force against him. (Dkt. 1 [“Complaint”].) In his 21 Complaint, Plaintiff informed the Court that he was currently incarcerated at the 22 West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga, California. (Id. at 8.1) On 23 October 29, 2020, the Court notified Plaintiff that his case had been assigned to the 24 undersigned District Judge and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (Dkt. 3 25 [“Notice of Assignment”].) On November 2, 2020, the Court issued an order 26 dismissing the Complaint with leave to amend. (Dkt. 4 [“ODLA”].) The ODLA 27

28 1 Citations refer to the pagination imposed by the Court’s e-filing system. 1 dismissed the Complaint without prejudice for failure to conform to the 2 requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and provided 3 Plaintiff with options as to how to proceed with his action. (Id. at 3–4.) On 4 November 9, 2020, the Notice of Assignment was returned to the Court, noting that 5 Plaintiff was “NOT IN CUSTODY.” (Dkt. 5.) On November 12, 2020, the ODLA 6 was returned to the Court, again noting that Plaintiff was “NOT IN CUSTODY.” 7 (Dkt. 6.) 8 The Central District of California’s Local Rules state: 9 A party proceeding pro se shall keep the Court and opposing 10 parties apprised of such party’s current address and telephone number, 11 if any, and e-mail address, if any. If mail directed by the Clerk to a 12 pro se plaintiff’s address of record is returned undelivered by the 13 Postal Service, and if, within fifteen (15) days of the service date, such 14 plaintiff fails to notify, in writing, the Court and opposing parties of 15 said plaintiff’s current address, the Court may dismiss the action with 16 or without prejudice for want of prosecution. 17 C.D. Cal. L.R. 41-6. More than 15 days have passed since the Court served the 18 Notice of Assignment and ODLA by U.S. Mail upon Plaintiff at his address of 19 record. Because the Court is unable to deliver the ODLA, which provided Plaintiff 20 with options on how to proceed, Plaintiff has left this action in limbo. 21 District courts may dismiss cases sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for 22 failure to comply with a court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 23 Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); 24 see also Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962) (holding that the court 25 has “inherent power” to dismiss cases sua sponte for lack of prosecution). In Carey 26 v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam), the Ninth Circuit cited the 27 following factors as relevant to the Court’s determination whether to dismiss an 28 action for failure to prosecute: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 1 |) litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 2 || defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and 3 || (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Id. at 1440; accord Sokolsky v. 4 || Meeks, 789 F. App’x 63, 64 (9th Cir. 2019). 5 Here, factors one and two, the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 6 || litigation and the court’s interest in managing its docket, militate in favor of 7 || dismissal for Plaintiffs failure to prosecute. Factor four, the public policy favoring 8 || disposition of cases on the merits, counsels against dismissal, but a dismissal 9 || without prejudice would not, in and of itself, preclude consideration of the case on 10 || the merits at some later date. Lastly, the fifth factor, the availability of less drastic 11 || sanctions, also counsels in favor of dismissal where, as here, mail to Plaintiff is 12 || being returned as undelivered at the address of record he provided. Under the facts 13 || here, there is no viable lesser alternative. Thus, three of the five factors set forth in 14 || Carey strongly favor dismissal, and dismissal of the action is warranted. 15 16 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered dismissing this 17 || action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (nh 19 | DATED: November 25, 2020 00 ANDRE BIROTTE JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22 || Presented by: =| Kou E Seat 24 | KAREN E. SCOTT 95 || UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28