John Huerta v. State, 8:16-cv-01938

Plaintiff John Huerta filed a civil-rights complaint on October 25, 2016.
Defendant filed a status report (Feb. 28, 2017) stating Huerta was released from jail Dec. 19, 2016 and that discovery was impeded by lack of a current address.
Huerta failed to file a required status report by March 1, 2017 and did not comply with a March 16, 2017 order to show cause; the court informed him that filing a status report by April 17, 2017 would satisfy the order to show cause.
The order to show cause was returned by the postal service as undeliverable on April 3, 2017; Huerta did not notify the court of a change of address.
The court applied the five-factor test for dismissal for failure to prosecute and concluded Huerta’s conduct prevented prosecution and discovery, creating a rebuttable presumption of prejudice to defendants.
The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute, noting it had warned Huerta that dismissal was possible and that no further steps were possible without a current address.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute	Huerta did not present any argument or excuse (no filings)	Defendant argued discovery impossible without current address; urged dismissal	Court dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute
Whether plaintiff’s failure to keep address current justifies dismissal	No response or explanation from Huerta	Failure to update address impeded service and proceedings	Court held Local Rule 41-6 and case law permit dismissal where mail is returned undeliverable and plaintiff fails to update address
Applicability of five-factor test (public interest, docket control, prejudice, merits, lesser sanctions)	No rebuttal offered to counter presumption of prejudice	Defendant relied on court management and prejudice arguments	Court found factors 1,2,3,5 favored dismissal; factor 4 favored plaintiff but was outweighed
Adequacy of notice before dismissal	Huerta received an order to show cause warning dismissal could result	Defendant noted court had given warning and opportunity to comply	Court held the order to show cause provided sufficient notice given plaintiff’s lack of response and unknown address

Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (court’s authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution is necessary to prevent undue delays)
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir.) (district court may dismiss for failure to comply with court orders)
In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447 (9th Cir.) (five-factor test for dismissal for failure to prosecute)
Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir.) (court need not hold case in abeyance when plaintiff’s failure to keep contact prevents inquiry into reasons for delay)
Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648 (9th Cir.) (plaintiff responsible for moving case toward disposition)