Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00909/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00909-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
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 Respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed on May 25, 2010 (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No.

1

16.) asserts that Petitioner had been released from custody. 

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABDO ALI HASSAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ATTORNEY GENERAL et al., )

)

Respondents. )

________________________________)

1:09-cv-00909 MJS HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION DUE TO

PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO FOLLOW 

COURT ORDER

[Doc. 15] 

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to the

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. Local Rule 305(b).

On May 22, 2009, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. On April 15, 2010,

the Court issued, and served on Petitioner, an order reassigning the case to Magistrate Judge

Michael J. Seng. (Reassignment Order, ECF No. 14.) On April 26, 2010, the order served on

Petitioner was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable. On May 7, 2010, the

Court issued a order to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed due to

Petitioner's failure to prosecute the present matter. (Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 15.) On

May 19, 2010, the order served on Petitioner was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as

undeliverable. Over sixty-three (63) days have passed since mail directed to the Petitioner 1

Case 1:09-cv-00909-MJS Document 17 Filed 07/19/10 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California -2-

has been returned, and Petitioner has not informed the Court of his address as required by

court order.

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:

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-three (63) days

thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action

without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

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, 1423-24 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King,

856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (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 since May 22, 2009. 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 (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

Petitioner based on Petitioner’s failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address, no

lesser sanction is feasible. 

Petitioner has failed to inform the Court of his current address as required by Local Rule

183(b) and court order. Therefore, his petition must be dismissed. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 1:09-cv-00909-MJS Document 17 Filed 07/19/10 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California -3-

1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice; 

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to dismiss all pending motions as MOOT;

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00909-MJS Document 17 Filed 07/19/10 Page 3 of 3