Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00546/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00546-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Attorney General
Respondent
Kenneth Dowe Smith
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH DOWE SMITH, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-00546-OWW-TAG HC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS PETITION

(Doc. 1) 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On December 9, 2005, the Court ordered Respondent to file a second amended petition. 

(Doc. 7). On January 9, 2006, Petitioner requested an extension of time within which to file the

second amended petition. (Doc. 8). On February 21, 2006, the Court granted Petitioner thirty days

from the date of service of that order within which to file the second amended petition. (Doc. 10). 

On February 29, 2006 and on March 3, 2006, copies of the Court’s orders sent to Petitioner were

returned by the U.S. Postal Service as “undeliverable.” (Docs. 11 & 12). On May 18, 2006, the

documents were re-served on Petitioner (Doc. 13), but again they were returned by the U.S. Postal

Service on May 30, 2006. (Doc. 14). Service of a subsequent order dated June 7, 2006 (Doc. 15),

re-assigning the case to a new District Judge, was also returned as “undeliverable” on June 13, 2006. 

(Doc. 16). In sum, the Court has had no contact with Petitioner since January 9, 2006, and all of his

mail has been returned “undeliverable” since February 28, 2006.

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:

Case 1:05-cv-00546-OWW -TAG Document 17 Filed 07/19/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

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 Petitioner's mail was first returned

to the Court as “undeliverable”, yet 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 (9 Cir. 1988). th

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

since March 25, 2005. 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 (9 Cir. th

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.

RECOMMENDATION

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

prejudice for Petitioner's failure to prosecute. 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned

to this case, 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

Case 1:05-cv-00546-OWW -TAG Document 17 Filed 07/19/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

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 Court 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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-00546-OWW -TAG Document 17 Filed 07/19/06 Page 3 of 3