Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06559/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06559-2/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

 )

Federico Hernandez )

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

 )

Raymond Andrews, )

Respondent. )

)

)

CV F 04-6559 AWI WMW HC 

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION RE

DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis with a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

section 2241. 

 On August 10, 2005, the court issued an order granting

a motion to file exhibits and served the order on Petitioner. On

September 15, 2005, 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 1:04-cv-06559-AWI-WMW Document 17 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 since

November of 2004 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

Case 1:04-cv-06559-AWI-WMW Document 17 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

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 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 9, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06559-AWI-WMW Document 17 Filed 03/13/06 Page 3 of 3