1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JANAI SERENE OPAL MEEKS, No. 2:22-CV-0598-DJC-DMC-P 12 Petitioner,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

13 v. 14 THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED

STATES,

15 Respondent. 16

17 18 Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas 19 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 On August 3, 2023, and September 28, 2023, mail directed to 20 Petitioner was returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable. Pursuant to Eastern 21 District of California Local Rule 183(b), any party appearing pro se must file and serve a notice 22 of change of address within 63 days of mail being returned. To date, more than 63 days have 23 elapsed since mail was returned and Petitioner has not notified the Court of a change of address. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 1 The matter was transferred to this Court by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as 28 an original habeas petition erroneously filed in the circuit court. See ECF No. 1. ] The Court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal. 2 || See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal 3 || Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in 4 | expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of 5 || prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; 6 || and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 7 || 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an appropriate 8 || sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone, 9 | 833 F.2d at 132-33 &n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is appropriate where 10 || there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 11 || 1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to inform the district 12 || court and parties of a change of address pursuant to local rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 13 | 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). 14 Having considered these factors, and in light of Petitioner’s failure to submit a 15 || notice of change of address, the Court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate. 16 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed, 17 || without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders and 18 || that Respondent’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 12, be denied as moot. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 20 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 21 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 22 || objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 23 || objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 24 || Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 26 | Dated: January 11, 2024 Co 27 DENNIS M. COTA 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE