Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00073/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00073-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Percy Adams
Petitioner
Bernie Ellis
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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERCY ADAMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

BERNIE ELLIS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-0073 REC LJO HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

On January 19, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. On

January 27, 2006, the Court issued an order granting Respondent’s motion to substitute counsel. The

order was served on all parties. On February 22, 2006, the order mailed to Petitioner was returned by

the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable with the following notation: “Inmate gone.” 

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:

If mail directed to a Petitioner in propria persona by the Clerk is

Case 1:05-cv-00073-AWI-LJO Document 22 Filed 04/28/06 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

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.

In the instant case, sixty days 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 since

January 19, 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 (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. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for

Petitioner's failure to prosecute. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Robert E. Coyle, United

States District Court 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 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

Case 1:05-cv-00073-AWI-LJO Document 22 Filed 04/28/06 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

Magistrate Judge’s Findings 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: April 28, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00073-AWI-LJO Document 22 Filed 04/28/06 Page 3 of 3