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

jl 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 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE COURT’S

ORDERS

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, 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, inexplicable, 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 reserved 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” and “out of

Case 1:06-cv-00431-LJO -TAG Document 10 Filed 02/28/07 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

jl 2

custody” on October 6, 2006. (Doc. 8). 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. Nor has Petitioner

advised the Court of his new address in over four months.

 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 four months have passed since Petitioner's mail was 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.

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

Case 1:06-cv-00431-LJO -TAG Document 10 Filed 02/28/07 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

jl 3

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Petitioner is GRANTED TWENTY (20) days from the date of service of this

Order, to SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be dismissed for failing to

comply with the Court’s orders and failing to keep the Court informed of

Petitioner’s correct address. 

Petitioner is 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00431-LJO -TAG Document 10 Filed 02/28/07 Page 3 of 3