Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00094/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00094-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN C. COLLINS,

Petitioner,

v.

PAUL M. SHULTZ,

Respondent.

 /

1:05-CV-0094 AWI JMD HC 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

 Petitioner Steven C. Collins is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On October 17, 2007, the court served Petitioner with an order reassigning this action to a

new Magistrate Judge. However, the pleadings were returned to the court by the United States

Postal Service on October 30, 2007, marked “No Longer At This Facility”. On February 27,

2008, the court ordered Petitioner to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for

Petitioner’s failure to prosecute by keeping the court apprised of his current address. This order

was also returned to the court by the United States Postal Service on March 7, 2008, marked “No

Longer At This Address/Facility”.

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-00094-AWI-JMD Document 22 Filed 04/09/08 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

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, well over sixty days has passed since Petitioner’s mail was first

returned and Petitioner has still not notified the court of a current address. Petitioner is

therefore in violation of the Local Rules. Local Rule 11-110 provides that “a failure of counsel

or of a party to comply with these Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for

the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 

District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that

power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.”

Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9 Cir. 1986). In determining whether to

th

dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives set forth in its order, “the Court must

weigh the following 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 defendants/respondents; (4) the

availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

“‘The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,’”

Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642; Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999. 

Here, this action has been pending for over three years. The court cannot continue to expend its

scare resources assisting a litigant who will not help himself by complying with court orders and

Local Rules and who fails to submit a notice of change or address. Thus, both the first and

second factors weigh in favor of dismissal. Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a

lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d

at 642; Yourish 191 F.3d at 991. However, the delay has increased the risk that witnesses’

memories will fade and evidence will become stale, and it is Petitioner’s failure to provide an

address at which the court can serve Petitioner that is causing delay. Therefore, the third factor

weighs in favor of dismissal. As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the

Case 1:05-cv-00094-AWI-JMD Document 22 Filed 04/09/08 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

proceedings there is little available to the court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser

sanction when the court is dealing with a Petitioner who has not updated his address, making it

impossible for the court to contact Petitioner. Because the dismissal being considered in this

case is without prejudice, the court is stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of

dismissal with prejudice. Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this

factor will always weigh against dismissal. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d 643. However, the other

factors indicate a dismissal without prejudice is warranted. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to prosecute

this action by keeping the court apprised of his current address.

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

9h0d30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00094-AWI-JMD Document 22 Filed 04/09/08 Page 3 of 3