Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00689/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00689-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUADALUPE SOLIS ALVAREZ, No. CIV S-05-0689-DFL-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JAMES YATES, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 15, 2005, petitioner filed a notice of

change of address. That document, however, did not contain proof of service on respondents. On

August 24, 2005, the court directed petitioner to serve a copy of the August 15, 2005, notice of

change of address on respondents and to file proof of such service with the court within 15 days

of the date of the order. The order warned petitioner that failure to comply could result in the

imposition of sanctions. To date, petitioner has not complied with the court’s order. 

The court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal. 

See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of

prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits;

and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,

53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an appropriate

Case 2:05-cv-00689-JAM -CMK Document 30 Filed 10/21/05 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

2

sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone,

833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is appropriate where

there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.

1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to inform the district

court and parties of a change of address pursuant to local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d

1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam).

Having considered these factors, and in light of petitioner’s failure comply with

court rules requiring proofs of service on all documents filed with the court and the court’s

August 24, 2005, order, the court finds that dismissal is appropriate. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed

and all pending motions be denied as moot.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

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

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings

and Recommendations.” 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).

DATED: October 20, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00689-JAM -CMK Document 30 Filed 10/21/05 Page 2 of 2