Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00100/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00100-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

RODNEY WILLIAM BAILEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-00100-AWI-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(Doc. 6) 

Plaintiff Rodney William Bailey (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on

August 10, 2005, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The

action was transferred to this court on January 31, 2006. On March 7, 2006, the court issued an

order granting plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, an order directing collection

of the filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account, and an informational order. (Docs. 3-5.) On March

31, 2006, the orders were returned to the court by the United States Postal Service with a notation

that the forwarding order had expired. (Doc. 6.) 

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 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. 

Case 1:06-cv-00100-AWI-LJO Document 8 Filed 06/13/06 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

In the instant case, sixty days have passed since plaintiff’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. The court cannot hold this case in abeyance

indefinitely based on plaintiff’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 (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 plaintiff based on plaintiff’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, without

prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 

This Findings and Recommendations is 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 eleven (11)

days after being served with this Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-00100-AWI-LJO Document 8 Filed 06/13/06 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

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: June 13, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00100-AWI-LJO Document 8 Filed 06/13/06 Page 3 of 3