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.

Patrick O'dell v. Bill Lutz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 30, 2012

PATRICK O'DELL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BILL LUTZ,
DEFENDANT

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

(HC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on April 4, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. On April 30, 2012, the petition was transferred to this Court.

On May 1, 2012, the Court disregarding Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis as moot because he paid the $5.00 filing fee on April 4, 2012.

On May 11, 2012, the order on the motion to proceed in forma pauperis was returned to the Court as "undeliverable" with a notation that Petitioner was "not in custody."

It is Petitioner's responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. See Local Rule 183(b). Absent notice of a party's change of address, service of documents at the prior address of the party is fully effective. Local Rule 182(f). Furthermore, if mail directed to a pro se petitioner is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if the petitioner fails to notify the court within sixty-three days thereafter of a current address, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Local Rule 183(b).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for failure to prosecute; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to terminate this action in its entirety.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation." Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120730

© 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.