Gregory Carey v. John E. King
- Decided
- September 15, 1988
- Docket
- 86-4335
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,126 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that a party, including a pro se litigant, “bears the burden or keeping the court apprised of any changes in his mailing address” — Hill v. Plaquemines Parish Sheriff's Office (2023)
- holding that the district court did not abuse its 8 discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff’s action for failure to keep the court apprised of his 9 correct address — (HC) Pineda v. Gipson (2020)
- concluding that there was no less drastic sanction 9 available than dismissal where mail addressed to plaintiff was returned by the post 10 office as undeliverable and plaintiff did not provide updated address to court — Todd Tei v. Los Angeles Department of Child and Family Services (2020)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
PER CURIAM:
Carey appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to prosecute. He contends that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his complaint sixty days after mail, addressed to him from the district court, was returned by the post office as undeliverable. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court’s order dismissing an action for failure to prosecute for an abuse of discretion.
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1390, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962);
Statutes cited
Cite this
Gregory Carey v. John E. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (1988)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.