Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06406/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06406-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
USA
Respondent
Dorothy Marie Willard
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

U.S. D istrict Court

 E. D . Califor nia 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOROTHY MARIE WILLARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

USA, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

CV F 04 6406 OWW WMW HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

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

28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 15, 2004; paid a $5.00 filing

fee on November 15, 2004, and on December 20, 2004, filed a motion for release. On February 17,

2005, the Court issued an Order requiring respondent to respond to the motion for release. 

Respondent's opposition was filed March 16, 2005. The Court's Order served on petitioner was

returned on March 28, 2005, 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:

Case 1:04-cv-06406-OWW -WMW Document 10 Filed 08/09/05 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. D istrict Court

 E. D . Califor nia 2

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. 

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 October

15, 2004. 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. 

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 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

Case 1:04-cv-06406-OWW -WMW Document 10 Filed 08/09/05 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. D istrict Court

 E. D . Califor nia 3

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2005 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

bl0dc4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06406-OWW -WMW Document 10 Filed 08/09/05 Page 3 of 3