Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00042/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00042-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antonio Meeks
Petitioner
Jeff Wrigley
Respondent

Document Text:

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

)

ANTONIO MEEKS, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JEFF WRIGLEY, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07 CV 0042 OWW WMW HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On May 3, 2007, the court issued an order requiring Respondent to answer the petition

and served the order on Petitioner. On May 14, 2007, 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:

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 1:07-cv-00042-OWW -WMW Document 11 Filed 12/06/07 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, 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 (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 January 9, 2007. 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 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 cases on their th

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

Case 1:07-cv-00042-OWW -WMW Document 11 Filed 12/06/07 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

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: December 6, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00042-OWW -WMW Document 11 Filed 12/06/07 Page 3 of 3