Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01562/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01562-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY McCORVEY,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROBERT H. OLEVRA, et al.

Respondents.

__________________________________/

1:05-cv-01562 OWW-TAG (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING CASE BE DISMISSED 

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

 

(Docs. 4,6, 7)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 20 DAYS

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254.

This action was filed on December 7, 2005. (Doc. 1). Documents including a “Litigant

Letter” were mailed to Petitioner on December 8, 2005. (Doc. 3). On December 16, 2005, the

documents mailed to Petitioner were returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable. (Doc. 4).

On December 6, 2007, the Court served an order to show cause on Petitioner. (Doc. 6). On

December 14, 2007, the order served on Petitioner was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as

undeliverable. (Doc. 7). 

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 [petitioner] in propria persona by the Clerk is

returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such [petitioner] 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.

Case 1:05-cv-01562-OWW -TAG Document 8 Filed 02/28/08 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

In the instant case, sixty (60) days have passed since Petitioner’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 respondents; (4) the public policy favoring

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Henderson v.

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988). The

Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest

in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal, as this action has been pending since December 

7, 2005. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance indefinitely based on Petitioner’s failure to

notify the Court of his address. The third factor, risk of prejudice to respondents, 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, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth

factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, is greatly outweighed by the

factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, given the Court’s inability to communicate

with Petitioner based on Petitioner’s failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address, no

lesser sanction is feasible. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Petitioner’s failure to prosecute. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, 

Senior United States District Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within twenty (20) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

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.” Replies to the objections shall

be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Case 1:05-cv-01562-OWW -TAG Document 8 Filed 02/28/08 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. The District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal the District Judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-01562-OWW -TAG Document 8 Filed 02/28/08 Page 3 of 3