(PC) Abdullah v. Casaurang, 2:24-cv-01223

The plaintiff, Jalaal Abdullah, filed a complaint in the Eastern District of California against A. Casaurang and others.
On July 18, 2024, the court screened the complaint, found it legally insufficient, and gave Abdullah 30 days to file an amended complaint.
Abdullah was warned that failure to file an amended complaint could result in dismissal of the case.
Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or respond to the court’s order.
The court noted that it properly served Abdullah, and it is his responsibility to update his address.
The court considered the appropriateness of dismissal under the relevant legal standard and recommended dismissal without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute and Obey Order	Not provided (Abdullah did not respond)	Not provided	Recommended dismissal without prejudice
Obligation to Maintain Current Address	Not addressed	Not addressed	Plaintiff responsible for address; service deemed proper
Adequacy of Warnings Before Dismissal	Not addressed	Not addressed	Warnings to plaintiff deemed sufficient
Consideration of Less Drastic Alternatives	Not addressed	Not addressed	Less drastic measures considered; dismissal appropriate

Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2000) (court’s inherent authority includes dismissal for failure to comply with orders or rules)
Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rules is within court’s discretion)
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (court may dismiss for failure to comply with orders or file an amended complaint)
Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (plaintiff must keep court apprised of address)
Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128 (9th Cir. 1987) (failure to comply with a court order can merit dismissal)
Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (court can dismiss for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with rules)