Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00087/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00087-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

KEITH KELLY, )

)

Petitioner, )

vs. )

)

JAMES YATES, )

 )

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-cv-00087-LJO-TAG HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR PETITIONER’S

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

(Doc. 1)

ORDER REQUIRING OBJECTIONS TO BE

FILED WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS 

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 24, 2007, the Court sent Petitioner an order reassigning his case, to

Petitioner’s address of record. (Doc. 4). On March 27, 2007, the order was returned by the U.S.

Postal Service as undeliverable, with the notation “Cannot Locate.” (Doc. 5). 

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:

A party, appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and

opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. 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 (60) days thereafter of

a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without

prejudice for failure to prosecute.

In the instant case, more than sixty days have passed since Petitioner’s mail was returned and he

has not notified the Court of a current address. 

District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and Ain the exercise of that

power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.”

Thompson v. Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A

Case 1:06-cv-00087-LJO-TAG Document 6 Filed 11/15/07 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

court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action,

failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran,

46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an

order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th

Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with court order).

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 (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 9, 2006 when it was originally filed in the United States

District Court for the Northern District of California. (Doc. 1-2). The Court cannot hold this

case in abeyance indefinitely awaiting compliance by Petitioner. 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, Inc.,

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 Petitioner’s noncompliance with the Court’s order, no lesser sanction is

feasible. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the instant Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1-2), 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 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Case 1:06-cv-00087-LJO-TAG Document 6 Filed 11/15/07 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

California. Within fifteen (15) 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 served by mail) after

service of the objections. The District Judge 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 Judge’s order. Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00087-LJO-TAG Document 6 Filed 11/15/07 Page 3 of 3