Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00185/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00185-2/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES EDGAR MUNSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

NEIL ADLER, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

________________________________)

1:09-cv-00185 MJS HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION DUE TO

PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO FOLLOW

COURT ORDER

[Doc. 12]

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

U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to the

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. Local Rule 305(b).

On January 30, 2009, Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus. On April 15,

2010, the Court issued an order reassigning the present matter to Magistrate Judge Michael

J. Seng and served the order on Petitioner. (Reassignment Order, ECF No. 11.) On April 29,

2010, the order served on Petitioner was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable.

On May 7, 2010, the Court issued a order to show cause why the petition should not be

dismissed due to Petitioner's failure to prosecute the present matter. (Order to Show Cause,

ECF No. 12.) On May 17, 2010, the order served on Petitioner was returned by the U.S.

Postal Service as undeliverable. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 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 183(b) provides, in

Case 1:09-cv-00185-MJS Document 13 Filed 07/16/10 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California -2-

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-three (63) days

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

without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

 In the instant case, over sixty-three (63) days have passed since Petitioner's mail was

returned as undeliverable, and he still 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, 1423-24 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King,

856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (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 as this case has been pending since January 30, 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 (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

Petitioner based on Petitioner’s failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address, no

lesser sanction is feasible. 

Petitioner has failed to inform the Court of his current address as required by Local Rule

183(b) and court order. Therefore, the petition must be dismissed. 

///

///

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 1:09-cv-00185-MJS Document 13 Filed 07/16/10 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California -3-

1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice; 

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to dismiss all pending motions as MOOT; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00185-MJS Document 13 Filed 07/16/10 Page 3 of 3