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.

Juan Ortiz-Torres v. Michael L. Benov

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 25, 2012

JUAN ORTIZ-TORRES,
PETITIONER,
v.
MICHAEL L. BENOV, WARDEN,
RESPONDENT.

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

ORDER TO PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS WHY THE ) ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO INFORM THE COURT OF A CHANGE OF HIS ADDRESS DEADLINE: FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have 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 signed writings filed by Petitioner on June 17, 2011 (doc. 3), and on behalf of Respondent on June 24, 2011 (doc. 5).

Pending before the Court is Respondent's notice to the Court that upon the return to Respondent of a notice that had been sent to Petitioner on October 8, 2012, in the ordinary course of this proceeding, counsel for Respondent contacted prison authorities and was informed that Petitioner was released from custody at the Taft Correctional Institution (TCI). This notice of Petitioner's release from TCI was filed on October 23, 2012, by counsel for Respondent.

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.

Here, Petitioner's address at TCI is the address currently reflected in the Court's docket. In light of Respondent's notice, it therefore appears that Petitioner has delayed in giving the Court updated address information, and it is uncertain whether the Court has Petitioner's correct address information.

Petitioner is INFORMED that his delay in informing the Court of current address information constitutes a failure to comply with an order and rule of the Court pursuant to Local Rule 110. Petitioner is further INFORMED that unless Petitioner submits to the Court within fourteen (14) days his updated address information and an explanation for Petitioner's previous failure to provide the Court with an updated address, the petition will not be considered on its merits and will be dismissed for Petitioner's failure to prosecute and comply with the rules and orders of the Court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner shall SUBMIT to the Court updated address information and an explanation for any previous failure to inform the Court of his address no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20121025

© 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.