Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01428/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01428-4/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

LONNIE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 1428 AWI WMW P

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

L. BLUFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a former 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 June 20, 2007, the court sent to plaintiff an order directing

him to submit the filing fee for this action. On July 13, 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:

Case 1:05-cv-01428-AWI-WMW Document 16 Filed 09/19/07 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

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, 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. th

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

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

Case 1:05-cv-01428-AWI-WMW Document 16 Filed 09/19/07 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

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 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: September 18, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

j14hj0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01428-AWI-WMW Document 16 Filed 09/19/07 Page 3 of 3