Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01485/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01485-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND WRIGHT,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 1485 LJO WMW P

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

R. SHANNON, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915. 

On February 21, 2007, the court sent to plaintiff an order reassigning this

case. On April 2, 2007, the order served on plaintiff was returned by the U.S. Postal

Service as undeliverable.

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 1:05-cv-01485-BAM Document 39 Filed 06/05/07 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

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

th

interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the court’s interest in managing the

docket weigh in favor of dismissal. 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 th

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

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, plaintiff

Case 1:05-cv-01485-BAM Document 39 Filed 06/05/07 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

3

may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned

"Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is 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: June 5, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01485-BAM Document 39 Filed 06/05/07 Page 3 of 3