Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00431/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00431-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kern County Superior Court
Respondent
Jefferson Dean Underwood
Petitioner

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

JEFFERSON DEAN UNDERWOOD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-0431-LJO-TAG HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DISMISS PETITION FOR FAILURE

TO FOLLOW THE COURT’S ORDERS

(Doc. 1) 

ORDER DIRECTING OBJECTIONS TO BE

FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

In his petition filed on March 27, 2006 in the Central District of California and

transferred to the Eastern District of California on April 14, 2006, Petitioner contends that he was

convicted of possession of a controlled substance, being an inmate in possession of a weapon,

and active participation in a criminal street gang. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Petitioner states that he was

sentenced to a term of 16 months but, inexplicably, also contends that he was found

“incompetent to stand trial.” (Id.). Petitioner contends in his petition that the state trial courts

violated state law due to the sentence imposed and he requests that this Court “investigate”

the state courts’ actions. (Doc. 1, P. 7). 

On April 18, 2006, the Court issued new case documents to Petitioner but these were

returned as “undeliverable” on April 26, 2006. (Docs. 2 & 3). On May 22, 2006, Petitioner was

ordered to file a new application to proceed in forma pauperis by June 26, 2006. (Doc. 4). These

documents were returned as “not in custody” on June 1, 2006. (Doc. 5). The documents were

re-served on August 9, 2006 and on August 15, 2006, Petitioner filed a notice of change of

address. (Doc. 7). The documents were re-served but again were returned as “undeliverable”

Case 1:06-cv-00431-LJO -TAG Document 13 Filed 08/06/07 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

and “out of custody” on October 6, 2006. (Doc. 8). On February 28, 2007, the Court issued an

Order to Show Cause why the petition should not be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to comply

with the Court’s previous orders. (Doc. 10). Petitioner’s response was due on March 23, 2007. 

On March 2, 2007 and again on March 14, 2007, mail from the Court was returned undelivered

and marked “Out of Custody.” (Docs. 11 & 12). To date, Petitioner has yet to comply with the

Court’s order of May 22, 2006 to file a new application to proceed in forma pauperis, or with the

Court’s order of February 28, 2007 to respond to the Order to Show Cause. Petitioner has not

advised the Court of a new address since August 15, 2006, a period of almost one year.

 Pursuant to Local Rule 83-183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to

keep the Court advised of his 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, over fourteen months have passed since Petitioner's mail was first

returned, yet he has not notified the Court of a current address. Moreover, Petitioner has yet to

comply with the Court’s order of May 22, 2006 to file a new in forma pauperis application, or

with the Court’s Order to Show Cause dated February 28, 2007.

 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 (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 sixteen months. 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

Case 1:06-cv-00431-LJO -TAG Document 13 Filed 08/06/07 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

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, Inc., 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 advised of his current address, no lesser sanction is feasible. Moreover, in the February

28, 2007 Order to Show Cause, Petitioner was expressly forewarned that his “failure to comply

with this order will result in a Recommendation that the Petition be dismissed pursuant to Local

Rule 11-110.” (Doc. 10, p. 3). 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the instant petition (Doc. 1),

be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, 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 fifteen (15) days 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 Recommendations.” 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 District 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 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00431-LJO -TAG Document 13 Filed 08/06/07 Page 3 of 3