Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00407/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00407-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antonio Candelario
Plaintiff
L. Guiani
Defendant

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO CANDELARIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. GUIANI, 

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-407-AWI-MJS (PC)

DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff is a formerstate prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On March 12, 2010, the Court sent Plaintiff an Order directing him to submit an

application to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee. (Doc. 4.) On April 1, 2010, the

Order served on Plaintiff 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 plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is

returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff 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, more than 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

1

Case 1:10-cv-00407-AWI-MJS Document 6 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 2
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

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 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. 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. 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 defendants, 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 policyfavoring 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 plaintiff’s failure to keep the court apprised of his

current address, no lesser sanction is feasible.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY ORDERS that this action be dismissed without prejudice

for plaintiff's failure to prosecute. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-00407-AWI-MJS Document 6 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 2