Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05231/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05231-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tom L. Carey
Respondent
Ronald Edward West
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

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD EDWARD WEST, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

TOM L. CAREY, )

)

Respondent. )

 ) 

 )

1:03-CV-05231-LJO-TAG-HC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS; ORDER TO FILE

OBJECTIONS WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

(Doc. 1)

ORDER FOR CLERK TO SERVE

PETITIONER AT TWO ADDRESSES

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On February 23, 2007, the Court issued an order reassigning the present action to

District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill and served the order on Petitioner. (Doc. 41). On March 14,

2007, the order served on Petitioner was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable. 

The envelope stated that Petitioner could not be located at the California State Prison in

Vacaville, California. (Doc. 42). 

 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

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

without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

 

Case 1:03-cv-05231-LJO-TAG Document 43 Filed 05/29/07 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

 On March 4, 2005, Petitioner filed a notice of change of address to a street address in Turlock, California: 1317 1

Myrtle Street #1, Turlock, CA 95380. Due to evidence that Petitioner remained incarcerated at the California State Prison in

Vacaville, the Court did not change Petitioner's address of record to the street address, and the Court has continued to serve

Petitioner at the prison address. The Court notified Petitioner that the Court would not use the street address for service, and

Petitioner has not responded with a different address. Petitioner's mail has been returned to the Court as undeliverable since

December 23, 2005. In an abundance of caution, the Court shall serve the instant order on Petitioner at both the prison address

and the street address.

2

In the instant case, over sixty days have passed since Petitioner's mail was returned and he

has not notified the Court of a current address. 

1

 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 nearly two years since it was remanded to the Court. 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 advised of his current address, no lesser

sanction is feasible. 

 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED

for Petitioner's failure to prosecute. This Report and Recommendation is 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

Case 1:03-cv-05231-LJO-TAG Document 43 Filed 05/29/07 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

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report 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 District Judge 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

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

The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on Petitioner at the following two

(2) addresses:

(1) Ronald Edward West T-27863

California State Prison Solano

2100 Peabody Road

P.O. Box 4000

Vacaville, CA 95696

(2) Ronald Edward West

1317 Myrtle Street #1

Turlock, CA 95380

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:03-cv-05231-LJO-TAG Document 43 Filed 05/29/07 Page 3 of 3