Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01588/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01588-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
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

It is also noted that Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on May 25, 2010. (Mot. 1

to Dismiss, ECF No. 10.) By way of the motion, Respondent informed the Court that Petitioner had been released

from custody. 

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAR YANG, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ATTORNEY GENERAL et al., )

)

Respondents. )

________________________________)

1:09-cv-01588 MJS HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION DUE TO

PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO FOLLOW A

COURT ORDER

[Doc. 11]

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241.

On September 9, 2009, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. On April 15,

2010, the Court issued an order reassigning the present matter to Magistrate Judge Michael

J. Seng and served the order on Petitioner. (Reassignment Order, ECF No. 9.) On April 26,

2010, the order served on Petitioner was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable.

On July 19, 2010, the Court issued an order to show cause by August 5, 2010 why the petition

should not be dismissed due to Petitioner's failure to inform the Court of his current address.

(Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 11.) On July 22, 2010, the order served on Petitioner was

returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable. Petitioner has not proved the Court with

1

Case 1:09-cv-01588-MJS Document 14 Filed 08/25/10 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California -2-

his current address.

Pursuant to Local Rule 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 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-three (63) days

thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action

without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

In the instant case, over sixty-three (63) 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 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, 1423-24 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King,

856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (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 September 9, 2009. 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, 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 orders that this action be dismissed without prejudice for

Petitioner's failure to prosecute. 

///

Case 1:09-cv-01588-MJS Document 14 Filed 08/25/10 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California -3-

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice; 

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to dismiss all pending motions as MOOT;

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01588-MJS Document 14 Filed 08/25/10 Page 3 of 3