United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS THE PETITION (DOC. 36)
ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT (DOC. 37)
ORDER DEEMING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO BE A NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS (DOC.
37) ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO UPDATE PETITIONER'S ADDRESS ON THE DOCKET
SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 through 304.
I. Vacating the Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss the Petition
The first amended petition (FAP) in this action was filed on July 15, 2013, and an answer was filed. The FAP became ready for decision on or about August 16, 2013. Subsequently it appeared that Petitioner had changed locations without filing a notice of change of address. On February 4, 2014, the Court directed Petitioner to file updated address information in twenty days or face dismissal. When there was no response to the Court's order, the undersigned Magistrate Judge filed on March 6, 2014, findings and recommendations to dismiss the petition for Petitioner's failure to follow the Court's order.
On March 24, 2014, Petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations in which he explained that he had been transferred to the California State Prison-Solano (CSP-SOL) at Vacaville, California and did not receive the findings and recommendations until March 19, 2014. Additionally, because of programming changes and prison shutdowns due to violence, stabbings, and other matters beyond his control, Petitioner has been unable timely to address the findings and recommendations. Petitioner was apparently transferred to the Pleasant Valley State Prison and then again transferred out along with hundreds of other prisoners. Petitioner seeks a sixty-day extension of time to seek assistance to prepare a response to the findings and recommendations to dismiss the petition. Petitioner has apologized for his failure to file a notice of change of address.
Although Petitioner has failed to comply with the local rule that requires updated address information, it appears that Petitioners response to the Court's order was significantly impeded by forces beyond his control.
A court has inherent power to control its docket and the disposition of its cases with economy of time and effort for both the court and the parties. Landis v. North American Co. , 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet , 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). The issues presented by the petition have been fully briefed. The findings and recommendations to dismiss the petition were filed in the interest of the Court in compliance with its orders. In view of Petitioner's objections, dismissal is no longer necessary or appropriate. The Court exercises its discretion to vacate the findings and recommendations without seeking any further input from the parties, and to proceed to determine the merits of the petition without further delay.
II. Dismissing Petitioner's Request for an Extension of Time
Because the findings and recommendations will be vacated, Petitioner's request for an extension of time to prepare further objections to the findings and recommendations will be dismissed as moot.
III. Deeming the Objections to be a Notice of Change of Address and Updating the Docket
To avoid further delay, Petitioner's objections will be deemed to be a notice of change of address.
Petitioner is REMINDED that as a pro se litigant, he is responsible for keeping the Court informed of his current address; absent filing a notice of change of address, service at the prior address is fully effective. Local Rule 182(f).
The Clerk will be directed to update ...