The opinion of the court was delivered by: R. Gary Klausner United States District Judge
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (28 U.S.C. § 2254)
The petition is dismissed without prejudice.*fn1
When this action was filed the pro se petitioner was in the custody of the Los Angeles County Sheriff at the Men's Central Jail in Los Angeles. The petition, dated March 1, 2010, was lodged on March 9, 2010, and filed on March 30, 2010. [Petition, Docket no. 1.] In the petition, Petitioner asserts some five purported grounds for relief, stated, in full, as follows:
(1) "BA 201812-02 / 07 CV 1165 [CW] FMC. They said I wasn't eligible for proposition 36 any more because of the above case."
(2) "07-CV 1165 [CW] FMC. Docket 28/29 modify booking number mixup using to enhance my sentence."
(3) "Probation violation, Proposition 36, Registration Crenshaw Expo Us. Plea bargain denied my seroguel mental medication, receive very little physical health help."
(4) "Arrested date 10-07008. Legal mail obstruction CV-75. Proposition 36 / in M43. I file a petition in [identity] theft. I was rearrested 11-05-08 receive a 90 days plus prior 14 on 10-21-08."
(5) "Custody credits in Penal Code 4019. Today I have 190 days, actual time plus prior custody credits I didn't receive. Probation said I was doing 80% meaning violent. I do not have a violent."
[Petition at 5-6.] Whatever Petitioner is trying to say, none of these "grounds" intelligibly articulate a claim cognizable on federal habeas review. It also appears, from the face of the petition, that Petitioner has not exhausted state court remedies as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c). [Petition at 3-4.]
In a letter (dated March 30, 2010), a notice of reference (docket no. 2, filed March 30, 2010), and a minute order (docket no. 4, filed April 1, 2010) the court notified Petitioner that he was required, under Local Rule 41-6, to keep the court informed of his current address, and that his action would be subject to dismissal should he fail to do so. April 7, 2010, all documents sent to Petitioner by the court have been returned in the mail as undeliverable. [Docket nos. 5-6.] One such document was returned with an indication that Petitioner had been released. [Docket no. 5.] The inmate locator service of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department website (http://lasd.org/) indicates, as of April 23, 2010, that Petitioner was released from custody on March 4, 2010. Petitioner has not otherwise communicated with the court, and the court has no other address for him.
It is well established that district courts have authority to dismiss actions for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1962)(authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute necessary to avoid undue delay in disposing of cases and congestion in court calendars); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992)(district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with any court order).
In particular, this court may dismiss an action when a pro se litigant fails to keep the court informed of a ...