Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00875/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00875-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aaron Thornton
Petitioner
Rash W.
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

AARON THORNTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

 v. )

)

RASH W., )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:07-cv-00875 LJO TAG HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1) 

ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS

BE FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS 

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

28 U.S.C. § 2254.

This action was filed on June 19, 2007. (Doc. 1). On June 21, 2001, new case documents

were issued and mailed to Petitioner, including a “Litigant Letter.” (Doc. 2). On June 22, 2007, the

Court issued an order authorizing in forma pauperis status, and the order was served on Petitioner

that day. (Doc. 3). On July 3, 2007, the documents that had been mailed to Petitioner were returned

by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable, “no such name.” (Docs. 4, 5). 

Pursuant to Rule 83-183(b) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District

Court, Eastern District of California, 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:

A party, appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and

opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. 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 1:07-cv-00875-LJO-TAG Document 7 Filed 09/13/07 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 2

In the instant case, sixty (60) days have passed since Petitioner's mail was returned and

Petitioner 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. 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. 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.” The District Judge

will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are

///

///

Case 1:07-cv-00875-LJO-TAG Document 7 Filed 09/13/07 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

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: September 12, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00875-LJO-TAG Document 7 Filed 09/13/07 Page 3 of 3