1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MICHAEL ALAN GOLDBERG, Case No. 1:25-cv-01049-SKO (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

13 v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

14 WARDEN, FEDERAL BUREAU OF

PRISONS, [21-DAY DEADLINE]

15 Respondent. 16

17 18 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 20 On October 23, 2025, the Court issued an order granting a stay of the proceedings. (Doc. 21 8.) On November 21, 2025, the order served on Petitioner was returned by the U.S. Postal Service 22 as “undeliverable – return to sender.” 23 Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to keep the 24 Court apprised of his or her current address at all times. Local Rule 183(b) provides, in pertinent 25 part:

26 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 27 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 thirty (30) days thereafter of a 1 prosecute. 2 In the instant case, over thirty (30) days have passed since Petitioner's mail was returned 3 and he has not notified the Court of a current address. 4 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the Court must 5 consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 6 Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the respondents; (4) the public 7 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 8 alternatives. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 9 1439 (9th Cir. 1988). The Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 10 litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal as this case 11 has been pending since March 5, 2019. The Court cannot hold this case in abeyance indefinitely 12 based on Petitioner’s failure to notify the Court of his address. The third factor, risk of prejudice 13 to respondents, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the 14 occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 15 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor, public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, 16 is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, given the 17 Court’s inability to communicate with Petitioner based on Petitioner’s failure to keep the Court 18 apprised of his current address, no lesser sanction is feasible. 19 ORDER 20 The Court HEREBY DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to assign a District Judge to the case. 21 RECOMMENDATION 22 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for 23 Petitioner’s failure to prosecute. 24 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 26 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 27 twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id. The document 1 should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and 2 shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court 3 will not consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any 4 exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page 5 number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in 6 excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when 7 reviewing these Findings and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The 8 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver 9 of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). This 10 recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of 11 Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 12 should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

15 Dated: January 9, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27