The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable Oswald Parada, United States Magistrate Judge
Maynor Galvez N/A N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None None Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On August 11, 2011, Sky Trammell ("Petitioner") filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("Petition"). (ECF*fn1 No. 1.)
On June 23, 2011, Petitioner was arrested in this District based on two warrants originating out of the District of Arizona, case numbers CR 09-26-PHX-SRB and CR 04-50178-PHX-SRB. (SA 11-315-M ECF Nos. 1, 4; SA 11-320-M ECF Nos. 1, 4.) On 24, 2011, Petitioner was ordered permanently detained in both cases. (SA 11-315-M ECF Nos. 7, 9; SA 11-320-M ECF Nos. 4, 7.) On July 8, 2011, Petitioner was ordered removed to the District of Arizona. (SA 11-315-M ECF Nos. 13, 16; SA 11-320-M ECF Nos. 12, 15.) On October 5, 2011, Petitioner was sentenced a twelve month period of imprisonment in case number CR 09-26-PHX-SRB and a consecutive ten month period of imprisonment in case number CR 04-50178-PHX-SRB. (CR 09-26-PHX-SRB ECF No. 78; CR 04-50178-PHX-SRB ECF No. 88.)
On October 20, 2011, the Court issued an order dismissing the Petition with leave to for various reasons. (ECF No. 3.) The order was mailed to Petitioner at his original place of incarceration at P.O. Box 22003, Santa Ana, CA 92702, and his last address of P.O. Box 1048, Florence, Arizona. (ECF Nos. 3-5.) On October 31, 2011, and November 14, 2011, the order was returned as undeliverable. (ECF Nos. 4, 5.)
Rule 41-6 of this Court provides as follows:
A party proceeding pro se shall keep the Court and opposing parties apprised of such party's current address and telephone number, if any, and e-mail address, if any. If mail directed by the Clerk to a pro se plaintiff's address of record is returned undelivered by the Postal Service, and if, within fifteen (15) days of the service date, such plaintiff fails to notify, in writing, the Court and opposing parties of said plaintiff's current address, the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for want of prosecution.
Petitioner has failed to comply with Local Rule 41-6 by failing to notify the Court of his current address. Given Petitioner's failure to comply with Local Rule 41-6, the Court not believe Petitioner's conduct evidences his intent to continue to prosecute this action.
Accordingly, Petitioner is ordered to show cause no later than March 21, 2012, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Filing of Petitioner's current contact information in compliance with Local Rule 41-6 on or before March 21, 2012, shall be deemed compliance with this Order to Show Cause. Petitioner's failure to do so
the date indicated shall result in the Court recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.