Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05789/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05789-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE BOUIEADAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

YOKUM, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

)

1:04-CV-5789 AWI DLB P

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION RE

DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. 

 On October 3, 2006, the court issued an order directing plaintiff to submit USM 285

form and other service documents, and served the order on plaintiff. On October 17, 2006, the

order served on plaintiff was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as "Return to Sender" "Not at

this address".

 Pursuant to Local Rule 83-183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to

keep the court apprised of his or her current address at all times. Local Rule 83-183(b) provides,

in pertinent part:

If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is

Case 1:04-cv-05789-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 01/25/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to

notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty (60) days

thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action

without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

In the instant case, sixty days have passed since plaintiff's mail was returned and he has not

notified the court of a current address. 

 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the court must

consider several factors: (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. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d

1439 (9 Cir. 1988). The court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this

th

litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal, as this case

has been pending [amount of time]. The court cannot hold this case in abeyance indefinitely

based on plaintiff’s failure to notify the court of his address. The third factor, risk of prejudice to

defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the

occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522,

524 (9 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their th

merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally,

given the court’s inability to communicate with plaintiff based on plaintiff’s failure to keep the

court apprised of his current address, no lesser sanction is feasible. 

 Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for

plaintiff's failure to prosecute. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

Case 1:04-cv-05789-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

"Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 25, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNI j8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05789-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 01/25/07 Page 3 of 3