Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Russell Lee Gooch v. Los Angeles County Probation Department

March 14, 2012

RUSSELL LEE GOOCH
v.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Sheri Pym, United States Magistrate Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable Sheri Pym, United States Magistrate Judge

Kimberly I. Carter n/a n/a

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Petitioner: Attorneys Present for Respondent: n/a n/a Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Petition Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute

On November 30, 2011, pro se petitioner Russell Lee Gooch filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On December 5, 2011, the court issued an Order Requiring Response to Petition. In paragraph 11 of that Order, the court instructed petitioner: "Petitioner shall immediately the court and counsel for respondent of any change of petitioner's address. If petitioner fails to keep the court informed of where petitioner may be contacted, this action will be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 41-6." Local 41-6, states as follows:

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 his current address, the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for want of prosecution."

On February 6, 2012, the court issued an order granting respondent an extension time to respond to the petition, and on February 7, 2012 the Court Clerk mailed a

of that order to petitioner at his address of record in Santa Monica, California. That mailing was returned to the court as undeliverable on March 9, 2012, with an indication

petitioner was unknown at the address.

It therefore appears that petitioner has failed to follow the court's Order to immediately notify the court of a change of address. Petitioner's failure to comply with the court's Order, and failure to comply with Local Rule 41-6, renders this action subject

dismissal for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.