Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00783/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00783-7/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

LUIS ZALDIVAR, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

DARREL G. ADAMS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

1:05-cv-00783-AWI-SMS-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(Docs. 12 & 13)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

 On September 21, 2005, the court issued an Order requiring

plaintiff to show cause, within thirty (30) days, why this action

should not be dismissed for failure to keep the court apprised of

his new address and failure to prosecute this action, and served

said order on plaintiff. On October 11, 2005, the order served

on plaintiff was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as

undeliverable. A notation on the envelopes indicated: Return to

Sender - No Forward Order On File - Unable To Forward.

//

Case 1:05-cv-00783-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 10/28/05 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

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. To date, plaintiff has not

notified the court of his address change or otherwise been in

contact with the court. Absent such notice, service at a party’s

prior address is fully effective. See Local Rule 83-182(f).

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 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of

cases on their merits; and, (5) the availability of less drastic

sanctions. 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. 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

defendants, 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. 

Case 1:05-cv-00783-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 10/28/05 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

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

DISMISSED for plaintiff's failure to prosecute. 

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to

the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen

(15) days after being served with these Findings and

Recommendation, 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." Any reply to the objections shall be served and

filed within ten days after service of the objections. 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: October 27, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00783-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 10/28/05 Page 3 of 3