Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01146/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01146-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYLE L. JONES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

UNITED STATES PAROLE )

COMMISSION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

1:05 CV 05 01146 AWI WMW

HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF PETITION

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in this court. 

On May 23, 2006, the court issued an order denying Petitioner’s request for

appointment of counsel and served the order on Petitioner. On June 1, 2006, the order served

on Petitioner was returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable.

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:

Case 1:05-cv-01146-LJO-WMW Document 20 Filed 01/23/07 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

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 (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 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 (9 Cir. 1988). The court finds that the public’s interest in

th

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 of 2005. 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 Respondent, 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. 1976). The fourth th

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. 

 Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed

for Petitioner's failure to prosecute. 

 These findings and recommendations 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

thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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 Recommendations." Any reply to

the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The

Case 1:05-cv-01146-LJO-WMW Document 20 Filed 01/23/07 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

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.

Mmkd34Dated: January 23, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01146-LJO-WMW Document 20 Filed 01/23/07 Page 3 of 3