Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06609/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06609-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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

VICTOR LAMONT BROWN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

NO. 1:03-CV-06609 AWI

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO INFORM THE

COURT OF HIS ADDRESS

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. On September

11, 2009, the court issued an order reassigning the case to Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii. A copy

of this order was served on Petitioner by mail. On September 21, 2009, the mail was returned to

the Court stamped “Undeliverable”. 

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 Petitioner in propria persona by the Clerk is

returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such Petitioner 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.

///

///

1

Case 1:03-cv-06609-AWI Document 3 Filed 07/22/10 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

In the instant case, over sixty-three days have passed since Petitioner’s mail was returned,

and Petitioner has not notified the Court of a current address. 

In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to follow the local rules and/or

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. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9

th

Cir. 2002); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9 Cir. 1992). “These factors are ‘not th

a series of conditions precedent before the judge can do anything,’ but a ‘way for a district judge

to think about what to do.’” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460

F.3d 1217, 1226 (9 Cir. 2006) (quoting Valley Eng'rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng'g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, th

1057 (9 Cir. 1998)). th

The court finds that dismissal for Petitioner’s failure update the court with Petitioner’s

address is appropriate in this action. “The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation

always favors dismissal.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642; Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d

983, 990 (9 Cir. 1999). This action has been pending for over five (5) years. The Court cannot th

hold this case in abeyance indefinitely based on Plaintiff’s failure to notify the court of Plaintiff’s

address. Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in

and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642; Yourish 191 F.3d at 991. 

However, delay inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence

will become stale. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642. As such, the third factor, risk of prejudice to

also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury can arise from the occurrence

of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 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 advised of her current address, no lesser sanction is feasible. 

 ///

///

2

Case 1:03-cv-06609-AWI Document 3 Filed 07/22/10 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

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that this action be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to

apprise the court of his address, in violation of the Local Rules, and failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 21, 2010 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

3

Case 1:03-cv-06609-AWI Document 3 Filed 07/22/10 Page 3 of 3