Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05651/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05651-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

CAREY K. SMITH, JR., 1:03-cv-05651 TAG HC

Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

vs. WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY 

MATTHEW C. KRAMER. WITH COURT ORDER; 

 ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO

Respondent. FILE A RESPONSE WITHIN 

TWENTY DAYS (Doc.1) 

___________________________/

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On February 21, 2007, the Court issued an order reassigning the case from District Judge

Oliver W. Wanger to District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill. (Doc. 12). On March 1, 2007, the notice

was returned to the Court as “undeliverable” and “unable to forward.” (Doc. 14).

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “a failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all

sanctions...within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to

control their dockets and in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where

appropriate...dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Authority, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.

1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an

action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v.

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-1261 (9th Cir. 1992)(dismissal for failure to comply with an order

requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-1441 (9th Cir. 1988)

(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of

Case 1:03-cv-05651-TAG Document 16 Filed 05/29/07 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

address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to

comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)(dismissal for

lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

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 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 Petitioner’s mail was returned, and

he has not notified the Court of his 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,

779 F.2d at 1423; Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440-1441. The new case documents routinely sent by the

Court to each new petitioner advised Petitioner that he had an ongoing obligation to keep the Court

informed of his current address and that service to the last known address would be deemed

sufficient. Thus, Petitioner was cautioned that he risked violating the Court’s orders and incurring

sanctions should he fail to keep the Court advised of his current address.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing within twenty (20)

days of the date of service of this Order why the Petition should not be DISMISSED for Petitioner's

failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:03-cv-05651-TAG Document 16 Filed 05/29/07 Page 2 of 2