Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00480/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00480-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WILBURN,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. L. VASQUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00480-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff David Wilburn is or was a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on March 17, 2010. 

On March 19, 2010, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and on March 29, 2010, the order was returned by the United States Postal Service

as undeliverable due to Plaintiff’s “discharge.” 

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

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

the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter

of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without

prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

In the instant case, more than sixty-three days have passed since Plaintiff’s mail was returned, and

he has not notified the Court of a current address. 

///

1

Case 1:10-cv-00480-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 2
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 determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is

required to 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.’” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779

F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not

conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA)

Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 

In this instance, Local Rule 83-183(b) provides for the dismissal of an action based on

returned mail. Given the Court’s inability to communicate with Plaintiff, dismissal is warranted and

there are no other reasonable alternatives available. See Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441.

Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s

failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-00480-OWW -SMS Document 6 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 2