Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01978/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01978-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS ELIJAH JEMISON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

NAVARO, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

1:09-cv-01978-LJO-GSA (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS CASE FOR PLAINTIFF'S

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action

pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

On April 15, 2010, the court issued an order denying plaintiff's motion to open discovery

and for appointment of counsel (“Order”) and served it on plaintiff at his last known address

according to the court’s record. (Doc. 12.) The United States Postal Service returned the Order

on April 26, 2010 as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not notified the court of any change in his

address. Absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. Local Rule

182(f). 

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:

-1-

Case 1:09-cv-01978-LJO-GSA Document 13 Filed 07/16/10 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

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 the instant case, more than sixty-three days have passed since plaintiff’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 since November 3, 2009. 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 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 plaintiff based on plaintiff’s failure to keep the

court apprised of his current address, no lesser sanction is feasible. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

DISMISSED without prejudice for plaintiff's failure to prosecute.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J.

O'Neill, United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(B) and Rule 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

-2-

Case 1:09-cv-01978-LJO-GSA Document 13 Filed 07/16/10 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

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

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

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 16, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

220hhe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-

Case 1:09-cv-01978-LJO-GSA Document 13 Filed 07/16/10 Page 3 of 3