Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00193/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00193-1/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

MARK LEE REYNOLDS,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-00193 OWW DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On January 12, 2007, the Court issued an order denying Petitioner’s motion for the

appointment of counsel. On January 23, 2007, the order served on Petitioner was returned by the

U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable with a notation that Petitioner was “Not at this address.”

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 days have passed since Petitioner's mail was returned and he has

not notified the court of a current address. 

Case 1:06-cv-00193-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 06/12/07 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

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 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856

F.2d 1439 (9 Cir. 1988). The court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this

th

litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal as this case

has been pending since February 21, 2006. 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 (9 Cir. 1976). The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of th

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. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for

Petitioner's failure to prosecute. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Court 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 ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) 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

Recommendation.” 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 Court will then review the

Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Case 1:06-cv-00193-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 06/12/07 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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 12, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00193-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 06/12/07 Page 3 of 3