Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00490/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00490-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Benov
Respondent
Hector Lopez
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HECTOR LOPEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL BENOV,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00490-LJO-SAB-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 

PETITION

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On March 30, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. On 

March 31, 2015, the Court issued prisoner new case documents and order re consent or request 

for reassignment. On March 31, 2015, the Court mailed Petitioner the prisoner new case 

documents and order re consent or request for reassignment, an order authorizing IFP, and a 

copy of the petition. However, on April 20, 2015, these items were returned as “undeliverable, 

no longer at facility.” As of this date, Petitioner has not notified the Court of his new address.

I.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court may dismiss an action 

for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to 

Case 1:15-cv-00490-LJO-SAB Document 5 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 4
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

comply with the court’s local rules, or failure to comply with the court’s orders. See, e.g., 

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (recognizing 

that a court “may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon 

Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that 

courts may dismiss an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a 

plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court's orders); 

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of 

the court.”); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642–43 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming district 

court's dismissal of case for failure to prosecute when habeas petitioner failed to file a first 

amended petition). Local Rule 110 provides that a “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply 

with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court 

of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the 

inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose 

sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 

782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 

When determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to comply 

with a court order or failure to comply with a district court’s local rules, 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). 

Here, the Court relies on Local Rule 183(b), which confers discretion on the court to 

dismiss an action without prejudice if a petitioner appearing in propria persona fails to keep the 

court apprised of his correct address. Local Rule 183(b) provides:

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 plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by 

Case 1:15-cv-00490-LJO-SAB Document 5 Filed 07/08/15 Page 2 of 4
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

the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the 

Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter 

of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without 

prejudice for failure to prosecute.

It has been over 63 days since the mail was returned as “undeliverable, no longer at 

facility.” 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 new 

address. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Although Petitioner did 

not receive the Court’s prisoner new case documents and order re consent or request for 

reassignment, which includes a change of address form, Local Rule 183(b) provides notice that a 

petitioner must advise the court of a change in address or face dismissal of the action. 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 

his failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address, no lesser sanction is feasible. 

Therefore, the petition should be dismissed without prejudice. 

II.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s petition for writ of 

habeas corpus be DIMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 

thirty (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

Case 1:15-cv-00490-LJO-SAB Document 5 Filed 07/08/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned District Judge 

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

is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of 

rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00490-LJO-SAB Document 5 Filed 07/08/15 Page 4 of 4