Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02164/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02164-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLINTON VALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. CHEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-2164-MJS (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE

TO PROSECUTE 

PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW CAUSE BY

SEPTEMBER 6, 2010

Plaintiff Clinton Vales is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to the

Magistrate Judge presiding over this action. (ECF No. 5.) On April 16, 2010, the Court

mailed to the Plaintiff’s last known address an order reassigning this case. (ECF No. 6.)

The order was returned as undeliverable on May 3, 2010. 

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. 

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

and Plaintiff has not notified the Court of a current address. 

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the Court must

Case 1:09-cv-02164-MJS Document 7 Filed 08/05/10 Page 1 of 2
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-

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. 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 the

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 to communicate with Plaintiff based on Plaintiff’s failure

to keep the Court apprised of his current address, no lesser sanction is feasible. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause not later than September 6, 2010

as to why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-02164-MJS Document 7 Filed 08/05/10 Page 2 of 2