Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01593/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01593-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

RODNEY B. THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WARDEN ANDREWS, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

1:09-cv-01593-AWI-DLB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS CASE FOR PLAINTIFF'S

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

On September 9, 2009, the court issued new case documents

and served them on plaintiff. On September 28, 2009, the new

case documents served on plaintiff were returned by the U.S.

Postal Service as undeliverable.

 Pursuant to Local Rule 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 183(b) provides, in

pertinent part:

/////

-1-

Case 1:09-cv-01593-DLB Document 10 Filed 03/18/10 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

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 (9th Cir. 1988). The court

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, as this case has been pending [amount of

time]. 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 (9th Cir. 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

-2-

Case 1:09-cv-01593-DLB Document 10 Filed 03/18/10 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

to communicate with plaintiff based on plaintiff’s failure to

keep the court apprised of his current address, no lesser

sanction is feasible. 

RECOMMENDATION 

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 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 Recommendations." 

The 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: March 18, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

77e0d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-

Case 1:09-cv-01593-DLB Document 10 Filed 03/18/10 Page 3 of 3