Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01921/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01921-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

PATRICK O’DELL, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

TERRY LEE, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:09cv01921 OWW DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

Plaintiff Patrick O’Dell (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se, filed this action on November 2,

2009. 

BACKGROUND

On November 6, 2009, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either submit an application to

proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within thirty days. The Order was returned by the

United States Postal Service on November 20, 2009, as undeliverable. The envelope stated,

“Return to Sender, Not Deliverable As Addressed, Unable to Forward.” The Court attempted to

re-serve the order on November 20, 2009. On December 14, 2009, the order was again returned

by the U. S. Postal Service as undeliverable. The envelope stated “Not Deliverable As

Addressed, Unable to Forward.”

1

Case 1:09-cv-01921-OWW -DLB Document 6 Filed 07/29/10 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

On February 23, 2010, the Court re-served the order after the address was updated to

reflect “c/o Alberta Carter.” On March 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 

On April 8, 2010, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a status report because it was

unclear whether Plaintiff was incarcerated.

On April 26, 2010, the order was returned by the U. S. Postal Service as “Undeliverable,

RTS; No Such Street; Unable to Forward.” 

On April 29, 2010, the Court re-served the order on Plaintiff at the Inyo County Jail,

which was the address he listed on the March 29, 2010, order. 

On May 13, 2010, the order was returned by the U. S. Postal Service. The envelope

stated, “Undeliverable, Not in Custody.” 

The Court therefore attempted service at all addresses provided by Plaintiff. 

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to keep

the Court advised of his or her current address at all times. Local Rule 183(b) provides, in

pertinent part:

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 (63) days

thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action

without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

In the instant case, over 63 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 defendants; (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). 

2

Case 1:09-cv-01921-OWW -DLB Document 6 Filed 07/29/10 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

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 2, 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

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 his failure to keep the Court

advised of his current address, no lesser sanction is feasible. 

RECOMMENDATION 

 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court

Judge assigned to the case, 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 should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” A response to the objections, if any, shall

be filed within fourteen (14) days 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 28, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-cv-01921-OWW -DLB Document 6 Filed 07/29/10 Page 3 of 3