IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 5, 2009
VERDELL LAWSON, PLAINTIFF,
TINA HORNBEAK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CASE FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On August 6, 2009, the court issued an Order requiring plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the court of her willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable, and served the order on plaintiff. On August 14, 2009, the order served on plaintiff was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable. A notation on the envelope indicated that plaintiff is "not at this location." Plaintiff has not notified the court of any change in her address. Absent such notice, service at a party's prior address is fully effective. Local Rule 83-182(f).
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 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, more than sixty days have passed since plaintiff's mail was returned, and she 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 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 for nearly two years. The court cannot hold this case in abeyance indefinitely based on plaintiff's failure to notify the court of her 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 her current address, no lesser sanction is feasible.
Based on the foregoing, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:
1. This action be DISMISSED without prejudice for plaintiff's failure to prosecute; and
2. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to close this action.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 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 and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. 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.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.