Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00267/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00267-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steve Alden Mulliniks
Plaintiff
Wasco State Prison
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE ALDEN MULLINIKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASCO STATE PRISON,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

1:10-cv-00267-AWI-DLB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS CASE FOR PLAINTIFF'S

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On March 5, 2010, the court issued a Order re Consent or Request for Reassignment and

served the order on plaintiff. On March 11, 2010, the order served on plaintiff was returned by

the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable.

Pursuant to Local Rule 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 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, sixty days have passed since plaintiff's mail was returned and he has not

notified the court of a current address. 

-1-

Case 1:10-cv-00267-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 06/10/10 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

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 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, as this case

has been pending [amount of time]. 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 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 plaintiff based on plaintiff’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 for

plaintiff's failure to prosecute. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with

the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendations." The plaintiff is 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: June 9, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

77e0d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:10-cv-00267-AWI-DLB Document 17 Filed 06/10/10 Page 2 of 2