Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06085/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06085-1/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

STEVEN PERRIDON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

MELLO, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

1:04-cv-6085-LJO DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

OBJECTIONS DUE IN TWENTY

DAYS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. 

 On February 16, 2007, the court issued An Order reassigning

this case to Judge O’Neill, and served said order on plaintiff. 

On March 1, 2007, the order served on plaintiff was returned by

the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable. A notation on the

envelopes indicated: Return to Sender - Unable to Forward - NOT

DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED.

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,

Case 1:04-cv-06085-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 10/01/07 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

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 (60) 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 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 th

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. 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 th

favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly

outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. 

Case 1:04-cv-06085-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 10/01/07 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

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 Recommendation 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

(30) days after being served with these Findings and

Recommendation, 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

Recommendation." 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: October 1, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNITED STA j8 TES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06085-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 10/01/07 Page 3 of 3