Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00179/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00179-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry McCorvey
Petitioner
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

jl 1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY McCORVEY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

SUPERIOR COURT, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-0179-AWI-TAG HC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DISMISS AMENDED PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. 8)

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 original petition filed on February 17, 2006, Petitioner

challenged his sentence and claimed that his plea agreement was violated. (Doc. 1). On April 11,

2006, Petitioner filed a complaint on a civil rights form, making the same allegations contained

in his original petition, but also asserting a claim for a money judgment. (Doc. 8). For purposes

of this action, the Court will treat the complaint as an amended petition. 

On April 13, 2006, the Court issued an order granting Petitioner’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis, and served the order on petitioner. (Doc. 9). On April 20, 2006, the order

served on Petitioner was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable. (Doc. 10). The

envelope stated that Petitioner was "Out of Custody." 

 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

Case 1:06-cv-00179-LJO-TAG Document 11 Filed 02/21/07 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

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

without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

 

In the instant case, over nine (9) months 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 (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 over twelve (12) 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. 

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the amended petition (Doc. 8)

be dismissed for petitioner's failure to prosecute. 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii,

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 fifteen (15) 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 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

Case 1:06-cv-00179-LJO-TAG Document 11 Filed 02/21/07 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

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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00179-LJO-TAG Document 11 Filed 02/21/07 Page 3 of 3