Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00724/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00724-1/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

CLEVER SIM, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

ALBERTO GONZALES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:07-CV-0724-AWI WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. On May 22, 2007, the court issued an order granting

Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and served the order on Petitioner. On May

30, 2007, the order served on Petitioner was returned by the U.S. 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 1:07-cv-00724-AWI-WMW Document 9 Filed 12/04/07 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 Ptitioner'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 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 since May 15, 2007. 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 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 (9 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring th

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

Case 1:07-cv-00724-AWI-WMW Document 9 Filed 12/04/07 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

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

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: December 4, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00724-AWI-WMW Document 9 Filed 12/04/07 Page 3 of 3