Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00102/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00102-6/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

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGGIE L. McCOY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

PAUL SCHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-0102 AWI WMW HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

(Document 1)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On February 1, 2007, the Court issued an order denying petitioner’s motion for default

judgment, and served the order on petitioner. On February 21, 2007, the order served on

petitioner was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable. The envelope stated that

“Not Deliverable As Addressed - Unable to Forward”. 

 Pursuant to Local Rule 83-183(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 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

Case 1:05-cv-00102-AWI-WMW Document 31 Filed 07/24/07 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

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, over sixty days have passed since petitioner's mail was returned and

she 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 Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving th

this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal, as this

case has been pending for over nine months. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance

indefinitely based on petitioner’s failure to notify the court of her 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. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition th

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

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

petitioner's failure to prosecute. This report and recommendation is submitted to the Honorable

Anthony W. Ishii, United States District Court 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 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 Recommendations.” 

Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if

Case 1:05-cv-00102-AWI-WMW Document 31 Filed 07/24/07 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

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 23, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

bl0dc4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00102-AWI-WMW Document 31 Filed 07/24/07 Page 3 of 3