Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Owens v. Aranas

United States District Court, D. Nevada

August 1, 2019

DONALD OWENS, Plaintiff,
v.
ROMEO ARANAS, et al., Defendants.

          REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          William G. Cobb United States Magistrate Judge

         This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Miranda M. Du, United States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the Local Rules of Practice, LR 1B 1-4.

         The court recommends dismissal of this action due to Plaintiff's failure to keep the court apprised of his current address and his failure to prosecute this action.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff was an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) when he filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, proceeding pro se. (Compl., ECF No. 4.) The events giving rise to this lawsuit took place when Plaintiff was housed at Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC).

         The court screened his complaint and determined that Plaintiff could proceed with his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against defendants Randolph, Brockway, and Aranas based on allegations that he has glaucoma and further lost vision due to the denial of medical appointments and eye drops. (ECF No. 3.)

         The parties participated in an early mediation conference on July 17, 2018, but did not reach a settlement. (ECF No. 9.) A scheduling order was entered on September 28, 2018. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to serve some defendants on October 19, 2018, which was denied as moot as the defendants had already answered the complaint. (ECF Nos. 20, 21.) He then filed several motions requesting to extend the scheduling order deadlines, which the court granted. (ECF Nos. 22-25.)

         On January 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address, indicating he was scheduled for release on February 1, 2019. (ECF No. 26.)

         On May 29, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to extend the deadline to serve dispositive motions, which was served on Plaintiff at the address noted in ECF No. 26. (ECF No. 27.) The court granted the motion, and extended the dispositive motions deadline to August 2, 2019. (ECF No. 29.) That notice of order came back undeliverable, and the court issued an order to Plaintiff's address of record directing Plaintiff to file a notice of change of address in accordance with Local Rule IA 3-1. (ECF No. 31.) That order was also returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 33.)

         On July 30, 2019, Defendants filed a motion requesting another extension of the dispositive motions deadline. (ECF No. 35.) The court issued an order vacating the dispositive motions deadline, noting that the court would enter a report and recommendation for dismissal of the action. (ECF No. 36). The court now recommends dismissal of this action due to Plaintiff's failure to keep the court apprised of his current address and failure to prosecute this action.

         II. DISCUSSION

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits dismissal of an action for the failure to prosecute or comply with rules or a court order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). In addition, LSR 2-2 provides that a plaintiff must immediately file written notification of any change of address, and the failure to do so may result in dismissal of the action with prejudice.

         In considering whether to dismiss a pro se plaintiff's action under Rule 41(b), the court considers: “(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1998).

         First, the public has an interest in expeditious resolution of litigation. Plaintiff's failure to participate in his lawsuit or apprise the court of his current address impedes this ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.