Opinion
NO. CV 09-6964-JFW(E)
11-19-2011
ISHMAEL MIZRAHI, Plaintiff, v. SARGENT ARBALLO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, all of the records herein and the attached Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is accepted and adopted; and (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing the action without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve forthwith a copy of this Order and the Judgment of this date on the Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.
JOHN F. WALTER
ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ISHMAEL MIZRAHI, Plaintiff,
v.
SARGENT ARBALLO, et al., Defendants.
NO. CV 09-6964-JFW(E)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable John F. Walter, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Plaintiff, pro se, filed this civil rights action on September 28, 2009. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on June 9, 2011. Plaintiff failed to file any opposition to the motion within the allotted time.
In early September of 2011, in another of Plaintiff's pending cases, Mizrahi v. Bell. CV 10-5405-JFW(E), a Minute Order addressed to Plaintiff at his address of record was returned to the Court undelivered. On September 14, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Minute Order in the present case requiring that Plaintiff file within twenty days of September 14, 2 011: (1) a Notice of Current Address stating Plaintiff's current address; and (2) either an Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment or a Notice of Intent Not to Oppose the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Minute Order cautioned that "[f]ailure to comply with the terms of this Order may result in dismissal of the action." Nevertheless, Plaintiff failed to comply with the September 14, 2011 Minute Order within the time allotted for compliance.
Plaintiff evidently has failed to keep this Court apprised of Plaintiff's current address. Therefore, this action should be dismissed without prejudice. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (pro se civil rights plaintiff's failure to advise court of change in address warrants dismissal without prejudice); L.R. 41-6 (authorizing dismissal of an action where a party proceeding pro se fails to keep the court and the opposing parties apprised of the pro se party's current address); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (court has inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions for failure to prosecute).
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: (1) accepting and adopting this Report and Recommendation; and (2) directing that Judgment be entered dismissing the action without prejudice.
CHARLES F. EICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE
Reports and Recommendations are not appealable to the Court of Appeals, but may be subject to the right of any party to file objections as provided in the Local Rules Governing the Duties of Magistrate Judges and review by the District Judge whose initials appear in the docket number. No notice of appeal pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should be filed until entry of the judgment of the District Court.