Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00519/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00519-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNESTO SALINAS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

ORTIZ, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

1:06-cv-00519-OWW-NEW(DLB)-P

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION RE

DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(Doc. 9)

OBJECTIONS DUE IN ELEVEN

DAYS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. 

 On February 27, 2007, the court issued a Notice of Temporary Assignment, and served said

order on plaintiff. On March 12, 2007, the order served on plaintiff was returned by the U.S.

Postal Service as undeliverable. A notation on the envelopes indicated: Return to Sender -

Unable to Forward - Death.

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

Case 1:06-cv-00519-OWW -LJO Document 10 Filed 06/04/07 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

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 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 (9 Cir. 1988). th

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 (9 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -- public policy favoring th

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 for

plaintiff's failure to prosecute. 

These Findings and Recommendation 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 eleven

(11) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, 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 Recommendation." 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

Case 1:06-cv-00519-OWW -LJO Document 10 Filed 06/04/07 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

the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 2, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00519-OWW -LJO Document 10 Filed 06/04/07 Page 3 of 3