UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 16, 2013
TITLE HARVEY GENE RAYBURN
T. L. GONZALEZ
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Oswald Parada, United States Magistrate Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Present: The Honorable Oswald Parada, United States Magistrate Judge
Jim Holmes N/A N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On December 2, 2010, Harvey Gene Rayburn ("Petitioner") filed a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Petition"), along with a supporting
Memorandum of Points and Authorities and supporting Exhibits. (ECF No.
1.) Petitioner challenges Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's June 1,
2009, reversal of the Board of Parole Hearings' ("Board") January 12,
2009, decision finding Petitioner suitable for release on parole. On
February 23, 2011, Respondent filed an Answer to the Petition. (ECF
On March 21, 2011, Petitioner filed an Oppositionthe Answer ("Reply"). (ECF No. 7.)
On March 26, 2013, the Court issued its Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, recommending the denial of the Petition, dismissal of the ex post facto claim without prejudice, and dismissal of the remaining claims with prejudice. (ECF No. 9.) On April 4 and 11, 2013, mail addressed to Petitioner was returned to the Court undeliverable with the notation "Paroled/Discharged." (ECF Nos. 11-13.)
Rule 41-6 provides that:
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.
Accordingly, Petitioner is ordered to show cause no later than June 14, 2013, 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 June 14, 2013, 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.
IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.