Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00928/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00928-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bob Frausto
Defendant
Daryl Leon Hanson
Plaintiff

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 This was formerly case 07mc0012. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARYL LEON HANSON, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

BOB FRAUSTO., )

)

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:07cv0928 AWI SMS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

Plaintiff Daryl Leon Hanson (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

the instant action filed on March 28, 2007. On April 11, 2007, the Court dismissed the 1

complaint with leave to amend and served the order on Plaintiff. On April 16, 2007, the order

was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable. The envelope stated “RETURN TO

SENDER- Not at this address.” 

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

keep the court advised 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

Case 1:07-cv-00928-AWI -SMS Document 7 Filed 07/03/07 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

thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action

without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

 

In the instant case, over sixty days have passed since Plaintiff’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 since March 28, 2007. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance indefinitely based

on Plaintiff’s failure to notify the court of his address. The third factor, risk of prejudice to

Defendant, 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 Plaintiff based on his failure to keep the Court

advised of his current address, no lesser sanction is feasible. 

RECOMMENDATION 

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

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 

This findings and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court 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 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 1:07-cv-00928-AWI -SMS Document 7 Filed 07/03/07 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

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 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: June 28, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00928-AWI -SMS Document 7 Filed 07/03/07 Page 3 of 3