(PC) Shidie v. Ramirez
1:21-cv-00186-ADA-HBK
E.D. Cal.Aug 10, 2023Background
- Plaintiff David Shidie, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint.
- The magistrate issued a screening order on May 12, 2023, mailed to Plaintiff's address of record.
- The mailing was returned as undeliverable on May 31, 2023 with the notation "paroled."
- Local Rule 183(b) and 182(f) require pro se parties to keep the court informed of any address change and to update the clerk within 63 days after returned mail.
- Plaintiff did not file a change of address within the required period; more than 63 days (70 days as of the findings) elapsed without notification.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute and ordered the Clerk to assign the case to a district judge; parties have 14 days to file objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal without prejudice is warranted for failure to prosecute by not updating address | No response; Shidie did not file a change of address or otherwise oppose | Defendants did not contest dismissal; court applied Local Rule 183(b) | Recommended dismissal without prejudice under Local Rule 183(b) for failure to prosecute; case to be assigned to district judge and 14-day objection period provided |
Key Cases Cited
- Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal where pro se plaintiff failed to keep court apprised of address)
- Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal proper for failure to prosecute and comply with local rules)
- Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2014) (failure to timely object to magistrate judge recommendations may waive appellate rights)
- Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to file timely objections can result in waiver of appellate review)