Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01308/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01308-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SINGH SARBJIT, 

 )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

 )

JOHN ASHCROFT, )

Respondent. )

)

)

CV F 05-1308 AWI WMW HC 

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION RE

DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and

in forma pauperis with a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. section 2241. 

 On November 16, 2005,the court issued an order and

served the order on petitioner. On November 28, 2006, 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 1:05-cv-01308-AWI-WMW Document 10 Filed 03/13/06 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 petitioner'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 (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 [amount of

time]. 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

Case 1:05-cv-01308-AWI-WMW Document 10 Filed 03/13/06 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

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. 

 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 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: March 10, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01308-AWI-WMW Document 10 Filed 03/13/06 Page 3 of 3