Bryan Bostic v. Lary D. Smith Facility, 5:23-cv-00333

Plaintiff Bryan Bostic filed a civil rights complaint signed Feb. 15, 2023 and filed Feb. 23, 2023, listing Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility as his address of record.
Clerk mailed a Discrepancy Notice (re: filing fee/IFP form) on Feb. 28, 2023 and a Notice of Judge Assignment on Mar. 1, 2023 to the address of record.
Both mailings were returned as undeliverable on Mar. 13, 2023 with “NIC” (not in custody) and not forwardable; a subsequent mailing (including to a "jailhouse lawyer") was also returned undelivered.
Plaintiff did not file a notice of change of address or otherwise notify the court of his new address within the required time.
The court treated the failure to keep the court apprised of a current address as a failure to prosecute and dismissed the action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal is warranted for failure to prosecute because plaintiff did not update his address after court mailings were returned	No substantive response/failed to notify court of new address or return IFP form	No active defense asserted; procedural default justified dismissal	Court dismissed the action for failure to prosecute under Local Rule 41-6 and the court’s inherent authority (Rule 41(b) principles), noting plaintiff did not respond within the required period

Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (district courts may dismiss actions for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute to manage docket and ensure orderly disposition)
In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447 (9th Cir. 1994) (factors for dismissal for failure to prosecute)
Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393 (9th Cir. 1998) (standard describing how many factors must support dismissal)