Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01546/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01546-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martha Musallam
Petitioner
United States Immigration Service
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

MARTHA MUSALLAM,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1546 OWW SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL FOR

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULE

83-183(b)

Petitioner is detained by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“BICE”)

and is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

 On December 6, 2004, this action was transferred to this Court from the United States

District Court for the Northern District of California. Documents including a “Litigant Letter”

were mailed to Petitioner. On December 19, 2005, the documents mailed to Petitioner were

returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable with a notation that Petitioner was “not in

custody.” (Court Doc. 3.) 

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.

Case 1:05-cv-01546-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 03/02/06 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 the instant case, sixty days have passed since Petitioner's mail was returned and she 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 (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 for since December 5, 2005. The court cannot hold this case in abeyance

indefinitely based on Petitioner’s failure to notify the court of her 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 her 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 Anthony W. Ishii,

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 thirty (30) 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 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

Case 1:05-cv-01546-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 03/02/06 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

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: March 1, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01546-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 03/02/06 Page 3 of 3