Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00748/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00748-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark Delk
Petitioner
Karen Prosper
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

MARK DELK,

Petitioner,

 vs.

WARDEN KAREN PROSPER, 

Respondent.

__________________________________/

1:06-cv-00748 LJO-TAG (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DISMISS ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

 

(DOCUMENT #7)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 20 DAYS

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

28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On November 26, 2007, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the Petition should

not be dismissed for failure to comply with the statute of limitations. (Doc. 6). The Order to Show 

Cause was served on Petitioner by mail on November 26, 2007. (Docket entry dated November 26,

2007). On December 6, 2007, the Order to Show Cause served on Petitioner was 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.

Case 1:06-cv-00748-LJO -TAG Document 8 Filed 02/22/08 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 (60) 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, 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, as this case has been pending since June

14, 2006. (Doc. 1). 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 for

Petitioner’s failure to prosecute. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill,

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 twenty (20) 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

Case 1:06-cv-00748-LJO -TAG Document 8 Filed 02/22/08 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

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. § 636

(b)(1)(C). 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: February 22, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00748-LJO -TAG Document 8 Filed 02/22/08 Page 3 of 3