Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01604/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01604-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WENG, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND )

NATURALIZATION SERVICE, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:09-CV-1604 GSA HC

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Petitioner is a detainee of the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs

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

U.S.C. § 2241.

On September 10, 2009, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. On

September 14, 2009, new case documents were issued and mailed to Petitioner. In addition,

Petitioner was ordered to return the consent/decline form indicating whether he would consent or

decline to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. On September 25, 2009, mail was returned to the Court as

undeliverable with notation 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

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 1

Case 1:09-cv-01604-OWW -GSA Document 3 Filed 01/21/10 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

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, 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 (9 Cir. 1988). The th

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

September 10, 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 (9 Cir. th

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. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a

district judge to this case.

RECOMMENDATION

The Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for Petitioner's failure to

prosecute. 

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 2

Case 1:09-cv-01604-OWW -GSA Document 3 Filed 01/21/10 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

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned District Judge pursuant to

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 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 ten (10) court days (plus three

days if served by mail) 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 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: January 20, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 3

Case 1:09-cv-01604-OWW -GSA Document 3 Filed 01/21/10 Page 3 of 3