(HC) Glidewell v. BOP ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL JUSTIN GLIDEWELL, No. 2:23-CV-0390-TLN-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. and 14 BOP, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On June 26, 2023, mail directed to Petitioner was 19 returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable. Pursuant to Eastern District of 20 California Local Rule 183(b), any party appearing pro se must file and serve a notice of change of 21 address within 63 days of mail being returned. To date, more than 63 days have elapsed since 22 mail was returned and Petitioner has not notified the Court of a change of address. 23 The Court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal. 24 See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal 25 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in 26 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of 27 prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; 28 and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 1 |} 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an appropriate 2 || sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone, 3 | 833 F.2d at 132-33 &n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is appropriate where 4 || there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 5 || 1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to inform the district 6 || court and parties of a change of address pursuant to local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 7 || 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). 8 Having considered these factors, and in light of Petitioner’s failure to submit a 9 || notice of change of address, the Court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate. 10 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned orders and recommends as follows: 11 1. It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, 12 | for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. 13 2. It is ORDERED that all pending motions, ECF No. 2, and 11, be denied 14 || without prejudice should these findings and recommendations not be adopted. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 16 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 17 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 18 || objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 19 || objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 20 | Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 22 | Dated: October 11, 2023 Co 23 DENNIS M. COTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28