Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01545/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01545-1/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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES MUCHERU,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., 

Respondents.

__________________________________/

1:07-cv-01545-LJO-TAG (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DISMISS PETITION FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

 

(Doc. 1) 

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 15 DAYS

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

28 U.S.C. § 2241.

On November 2, 2007, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause in this action. (Doc. 7). 

The Order to Show Cause was served on Petitioner and Respondents on November 2, 2007. (See

Docket entries dated November 2, 2007). On November 14, 2007, the Order to Show Cause served

on Petitioner was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable, with the notation “Out of

Custody.” (Doc. 8). 

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:

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, sixty (60) days have passed since Petitioner’s mail was returned and he

has not notified the Court of a current address.

Case 1:07-cv-01545-LJO-TAG Document 11 Filed 01/30/08 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

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 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. 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, 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 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. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Habeas Corpus be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to prosecute. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill,

United States District Judge, 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, Eastern District of 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 

///

///

Case 1:07-cv-01545-LJO-TAG Document 11 Filed 01/30/08 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

(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: January 29, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-01545-LJO-TAG Document 11 Filed 01/30/08 Page 3 of 3