Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00369/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00369-2/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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMAN KING, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS and )

CHARLES GILKEY, Warden, )

 )

Respondents. )

 )

1:05-cv-00369-OWW-TAG HC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE

(Doc. 1) 

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 18, 2005, the Court ordered Respondents to file an answer. (Doc. 6). On August

26, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion to stay execution of his sentence and for release on bail pending

disposition of this case. (Doc. 7). On November 8, 2005, Respondents filed an opposition.

(Doc. 9). On March 21, 2006, the Court denied the motion for stay of execution. (Doc. 11). A copy

of that order was sent to Petitioner but was returned as “undeliverable” by the U.S. Postal Service. 

(Doc. 12). 

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 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.

Case 1:05-cv-00369-OWW -TAG Document 13 Filed 07/19/06 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 2

In the instant case, more than sixty days have passed since Petitioner's mail was returned and

he has not notified the Court of a current address. Moreover, the Court’s cursory review of the

Bureau of Prisons’ records indicates that Petitioner was released from federal custody in November

2005. 

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). th

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 for

since March 25, 2005. 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. 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 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 without

prejudice for Petitioner's failure to prosecute. 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned

to this case, 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 thirty

(30) days 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

Report and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10)

Case 1:05-cv-00369-OWW -TAG Document 13 Filed 07/19/06 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 3

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: July 18, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-00369-OWW -TAG Document 13 Filed 07/19/06 Page 3 of 3