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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH MILLS, No. CIV S-04-2217-DFL-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s address of record is in French Camp, California. On November

4, 2004, however, an order served on plaintiff at this address was returned by the U.S. Post Office

as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address or otherwise informed the

court and defendants of a new address as required by Eastern District of California Local Rule 83-

183(b). On September 22, 2005, the court directed plaintiff to show cause in writing within 20

days why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with

court rules. That order was also returned as undeliverable.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-02217-DFL-CMK Document 8 Filed 10/20/05 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

2

The court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal. 

See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of

prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits;

and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,

53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an appropriate

sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone,

833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is appropriate where

there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.

1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to inform the district

court and parties of a change of address pursuant to local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d

1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam).

Having considered these factors, and in light of plaintiff’s failure to keep the court

apprised of his current address, the court finds that dismissal is appropriate. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed.

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 ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings

and Recommendations.” 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).

DATED: October 19, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02217-DFL-CMK Document 8 Filed 10/20/05 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

3

Case 2:04-cv-02217-DFL-CMK Document 8 Filed 10/20/05 Page 3 of 3