Albert Lee Mitchell v. Bryan Birkholz

Filing 12

ORDER DISMISSING ACTIONS by Judge John W. Holcomb. Both habeas actions are DISMISSED without prejudice under Rule 41 and the parallel Local Rule. (see document for further details) Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (hr)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 ALBERT MITCHELL,
11
12

Petitioner,
v.

13 BRYAN BIRKHOLZ, Warden,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Respondent.

Case Nos. CV 23-10000 JWH
(MRW)
CV 24-1415 JWH
(MRW)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTIONS

1

The Court dismisses these duplicative habeas actions based

2

upon the failure of a pro se litigant to follow court orders or to update

3

his address with the Court.

4

1.

At the time of the commencement of these actions,

5

Petitioner Mitchell was an inmate at the federal prison facility in

6

Lompoc. He filed two habeas actions in this judicial district in late

7

2023 and early 2024. Both actions presented similar challenges to the

8

existence of a detainer in Petitioner’s prison record and complained

9

about retaliation from prison staff.

10

2.

Following the commencement of the 2023 Action,

11

Magistrate Judge Wilner issued a case management order that

12

specifically informed Petitioner of his obligation under L.R. 41-6 to

13

“keep the Court informed of a correct mailing address” for him or risk

14

dismissal of the action. (2023 Action, Docket # 6 at 3.)

15

3.

The government moved to dismiss the 2023 Action on

16

various grounds. (2023 Action, Docket # 8.) While that motion was

17

pending, Petitioner initiated the second habeas action. (2024 Action,

18

Docket # 1.)

19

4.

Magistrate Judge Wilner issued an order to show cause

20

why the 2024 Action should not be dismissed as duplicative of the

21

2023 Action. (2024 Action, Docket # 4.) That OSC (and other case-

22

commencing documents) were addressed to a non-custody address in

23

San Francisco per Petitioner’s change of address request. (2023

24

Action, Docket # 10.) The U.S. Postal Service returned those items as

25

undeliverable. (2024 Action, Docket # 6-9.)

26
27

5.

In March 2024, Judge Wilner issued an OSC in both

habeas actions. The OSC noted the returned mail and duplicative

28
2

1

case filings. (2024 Action, Docket # 10.) Additionally, Judge Wilner

2

informed the parties that he confirmed via the BOP’s inmate locator

3

website that Petitioner was no longer incarcerated at Lompoc. The

4

magistrate judge ordered Petitioner to explain why the actions were

5

not moot and what habeas relief this district court could properly give

6

him given his release from custody.

7

6.

Petitioner failed to file any response to that OSC in either

8

of the pending actions. The Court and the government therefore have

9

no way of contacting Petitioner to advance this case.

10

7.

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that

11

if a plaintiff “fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court

12

order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.”

13

Dismissal also may be ordered by the Court sua sponte. Link v. Wabash

14

R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962). Dismissal of a civil action under Rule 41

15

may be appropriate to advance the public’s interest in the expeditious

16

resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and to avoid

17

the risk of prejudice to defendants. Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F. 3d 1081,

18

1084 (9th Cir. 2010). Additionally, a court should consider the public policy

19

favoring disposition of cases on their merits and the availability of less

20

drastic alternatives in its evaluation. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440

21

(9th Cir. 1988).

22

8.

23

A party proceeding pro se shall keep the Court and opposing

24

parties apprised of such party’s current address and

25

telephone number[.] If mail directed by the Clerk to a pro

26

se plaintiff’s address of record is returned undelivered by

27

the Postal Service, and if, within fifteen (15) days of the

Additionally, L.R. 41-6 provides in pertinent part:

28
3

1

service date, such plaintiff fails to notify, in writing, the

2

Court and opposing parties of said plaintiff’s current

3

address, the Court may dismiss the action with or without

4

prejudice for want of prosecution.

5

The dismissal of an action based on a litigant’s failure to inform a

6

district court of his or her address is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

7

Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440; Hickman v. County of Butte, 586 F. App’x

8

285 (9th Cir. 2014) (same).

9

9.

In the present action, the Court concludes that dismissal is

10

appropriate. Petitioner failed to respond to a direct instruction from

11

the magistrate judge to explain the basis for his duplicative habeas

12

actions. Moreover, Petitioner failed to provide the Court with up-to-

13

date contact information following his release from prison. As a

14

result, an order of this Court and other documents have been

15

returned as undeliverable. The magistrate judge previously ordered

16

Plaintiff to update his address with the Court as required by

17

L.R. 41-6 if he was released from custody. Plaintiff’s failure to do so

18

demonstrates that he has no interest in advancing the action here.

19

10.

By contrast, the Court, the government, and the public

20

have a strong interest in terminating this action. This is particularly

21

true given that Petitioner effectively chose to abandon both cases by

22

failing to update this Court with his current whereabouts, thereby

23

preventing any feasible advancement of either habeas action. The

24

Court finds that dismissal is appropriate under Rule 41(b) and

25

L.R. 41-6. Furthermore, because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who did

26

not abide by the Local Rules or the Court’s previous order, no

27
28
4

1

sanction short of dismissal will be effective in moving this case

2

forward. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440.

3
4
5

11.

Therefore, both habeas actions are DISMISSED without

prejudice under Rule 41 and the parallel Local Rule.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: __________________

_______________________________
HON. JOHN W. HOLCOMB
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5