Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Kenneth H. Casner v. Kathleen Dickinson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 14, 2012

KENNETH H. CASNER,
PETITIONER,
v.
KATHLEEN DICKINSON, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER TO PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE IN THIRTY (30) DAYS WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO INFORM THE COURT OF HIS CURRENT ADDRESS

ORDER DEFERRING RULING ON RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE PETITION (DOC. 16)

ORDER STAYING ORDER TO RESPONDENT TO RESPOND TO THE PETITION PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE OF PETITIONER'S APPARENT FAILURE TO INFORM THE COURT OF HIS CURRENT ADDRESS (DOC. 12)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including the entry of final judgment, by manifesting consent in a signed writing filed by Petitioner on July 2, 2010 (doc. 5).

On March 12, 2012, the Court ordered Respondent to file within sixty days a response to the claims remaining in the petition. On May 3, 2012, Respondent filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to the petition. On May 9, 2012, an order concerning consent which had been mailed to Petitioner was returned to the Court as undeliverable with a notation of inability to forward the mail.

Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to keep the Court informed of his or her current address at all times. Local Rule 183(b) further provides in pertinent part:

If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S.

Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Because mail sent from the Court to Petitioner was returned with a notation that it was undeliverable and that the postal service was unable to forward it, it appears that Petitioner has failed to keep the Court informed of his current address.

Accordingly, the Court's consideration and ruling on Respondent's request for an extension of time to file a response to the petition is DEFERRED pending resolution of the issue of Petitioner's apparent failure to keep the Court informed of his current address.

Further, the Court's order requiring Respondent to file a response to the petition is STAYED pending resolution of the issue concerning Petitioner's address.

Petitioner is ORDERED to show cause within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order why the action should not be dismissed for Petitioner's failure to keep the Court informed of the Petitioner's current address.

Petitioner is INFORMED that a failure to respond in a timely manner to this order will result in dismissal of the action for failure to comply with an order of the Court and failure to prosecute the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120514

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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