1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LEILA CRUZ McCOY, ) Case No. SACV 21-00583-JAK (JPR) 11 ) Plaintiff, ) 12 ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR v. ) FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 13 )

U.S. DEP’T OF HOUSING & )

14 URBAN DEVELOPMENT et al., ) ) 15 Defendants. ) 16 17 On March 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed this civil-rights action 18 pro se. On August 6, 2021, the Court dismissed the Complaint 19 with leave to amend because it failed to state a claim on which 20 relief could be granted. The Court warned Plaintiff that if she 21 failed to file a First Amended Complaint by October 4, 2021, her 22 lawsuit could be dismissed. On August 30, 2021, the Court’s 23 dismissal order was returned as undeliverable, with the notation 24 “Returned to Sender — Not Deliverable as Addressed — Unable to 25 Forward.” She has not filed a change of address. 26 Local Rule 41-6 provides that 27 [a] party proceeding pro se must keep the Court . . . 28 informed of the party’s current address . . . . If a 1 1 Court order or other mail served on a pro se plaintiff at 2 his address of record is returned by the Postal Service 3 as undeliverable and the pro se party has not filed a 4 notice of change of address within 14 days of the service 5 date of the order or other Court document, the Court may 6 dismiss the action with or without prejudice for failure 7 to prosecute. 8 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (per 9 curiam), examined when it is appropriate to dismiss a plaintiff’s 10 lawsuit for failure to prosecute. See also Link v. Wabash R.R., 11 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962) (“The power to invoke [dismissal] is 12 necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of 13 pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the 14 District Courts.”). 15 In deciding whether to dismiss a lawsuit for failure to 16 prosecute, a court must consider “(1) the public’s interest in 17 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 18 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 19 (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 20 merits[;] and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” 21 Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440 (citation omitted). Unreasonable delay 22 creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the defendants 23 that can be overcome only with an affirmative showing of just 24 cause by the plaintiff. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th 25 Cir. 1994). 26 Here, the first, second, third, and fifth Carey factors 27 militate in favor of dismissal. Plaintiff has ceased 28 communicating with the Court and failed to file a change of 2 1 |} address. She has not rebutted the presumption of prejudice to 2 || Defendants, nor is any less drastic sanction available. The 3 | Court cannot simply leave her lawsuit hanging on its docket with 4]| the hope that she might someday reappear. See Scott v. Belmares, 5 F. App’x 538, 539 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming dismissal of 6 || civil-rights lawsuit in part because pro se plaintiff failed to keep court apprised of change of address under Local Rule 41-6). 8 || Although the fourth Carey factor weighs against dismissal — as it 9 always does — together the other factors outweigh the public’s interest in disposing of the case on its merits. 11 Thus, this action is dismissed under the Court’s inherent 12 |] power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases 13 |] and because Plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 41-6. 14 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 15 16 | DATED: october 13, 2021 C] Ww.

JOHN A. KRONSTADT

17 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 18 |] Presented by: 19 | f Yutt. 20 ||"Sean P. Rosenbluth U.S. Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28