Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06730/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06730-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JON R. SIMPSON, CASE NO. CV-F-03-6730 OWW WMW HC

Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE

 DISMISSAL OF CASE 

vs.

 

RAYMOND D. ANDREWS,

Respondent.

 /

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On April 25, 2006, the court issued an order requiring Respondent to provide further briefing,

and served the order on Petitioner. On May 11, 2006, the order served on Petitioner was returned by

the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable. The envelope stated that Petitioner was no longer in custody.

 Pursuant to Local Rule 83-183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to keep the

court advised 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

Case 1:03-cv-06730-OWW -WMW Document 40 Filed 08/01/06 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

2

by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such Petitioner 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, over 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 (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 for over 2 years. 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 advised of his current address, no lesser sanction is feasible. 

 Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for

Petitioner's failure to prosecute. 

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States District Court

Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 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 Findings and

Recommendation.” Replies to 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

Case 1:03-cv-06730-OWW -WMW Document 40 Filed 08/01/06 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

3

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: August 1, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06730-OWW -WMW Document 40 Filed 08/01/06 Page 3 of 3