Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00523/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00523-4/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE SALVADOR RIVERA AVILA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

CHARLES DEROSA, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:07-CV-00523 AWI GSA HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

On August 20, 2007, the Court issued a Findings and Recommendation regarding Petitioner’s

motion for default judgment. On September 7, 2007, the Findings and Recommendation served on

Petitioner 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 Petitioner in propria persona by the Clerk is

returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such Petitioner fails to

notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty (60) days thereafter

Case 1:07-cv-00523-AWI-GSA Document 25 Filed 11/27/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

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 Petitioner'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 respondents; (4) the public policy favoring

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Henderson v.

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9 Cir. 1988). The th

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 since April 2,

2007. The court cannot hold this case in abeyance indefinitely based on Petitioner’s failure to notify

the court of his address. The third factor, risk of prejudice to respondents, 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, th

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

Petitioner based on Petitioner’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

Petitioner's failure to prosecute. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304

of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after being served with a copy, 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.” Replies to

Case 1:07-cv-00523-AWI-GSA Document 25 Filed 11/27/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail)

after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 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: November 26, 2007 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

60kij8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00523-AWI-GSA Document 25 Filed 11/27/07 Page 3 of 3