Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00709/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00709-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jack Cabada
Petitioner
Fresno Superior Court
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

JACK CABADA,

Petitioner,

 vs.

FRESNO SUPERIOR COURT, 

Respondent.

__________________________________/

1:07-cv-00709-OWW-TAG (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE

TO PROSECUTE 

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS

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

28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On May 15, 2007, this action was transferred to this Court from the United States District

Court for the Central District of California. Documents including a “Litigant Letter” were mailed to

Petitioner. On May 24, 2007, the documents mailed to Petitioner were returned 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:

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 (60) days have passed since Petitioner’s mail was returned and he

has not notified the Court of a current address. 

Case 1:07-cv-00709-OWW -TAG Document 7 Filed 12/28/07 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 2

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, 1440 (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. 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,

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

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed without

prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to prosecute. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

Senior United States District 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 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 Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

///

///

Case 1:07-cv-00709-OWW -TAG Document 7 Filed 12/28/07 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 3

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 27, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00709-OWW -TAG Document 7 Filed 12/28/07 Page 3 of 3