Casner v. Dickinson

Filing 17

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE in Thirty (30) Days Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Petitioner's Failure to Inform the Court of His Current Address; ORDER Deferring Ruling on 16 Respondent's Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to th e Petition; and ORDER Staying 12 Order to Respondent to Respond to the Petition Pending Resolution of the Issue of Petitioner's Apparent Failure to Inform the Court of His Current Address, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/14/2012. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

KENNETH H. CASNER,

9

Petitioner,

10
v.
11
KATHLEEN DICKINSON, Warden,
12
Respondent.
13
14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:10-cv—01081-SKO-HC
ORDER TO PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE
IN THIRTY (30) DAYS WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO
INFORM THE COURT OF HIS CURRENT
ADDRESS
ORDER DEFERRING RULING ON
RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR AN
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
THE PETITION (DOC. 16)
ORDER STAYING ORDER TO RESPONDENT
TO RESPOND TO THE PETITION
PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE
OF PETITIONER’S APPARENT FAILURE
TO INFORM THE COURT OF HIS
CURRENT ADDRESS (DOC. 12)

16
17
18
19

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

20

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

21

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner has consented to

22

the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge to conduct

23

all further proceedings in the case, including the entry of final

24

judgment, by manifesting consent in a signed writing filed by

25

Petitioner on July 2, 2010 (doc. 5).

26

On March 12, 2012, the Court ordered Respondent to file

27

within sixty days a response to the claims remaining in the

28

petition.

On May 3, 2012, Respondent filed a motion for an
1

1

extension of time to respond to the petition.

2

order concerning consent which had been mailed to Petitioner was

3

returned to the Court as undeliverable with a notation of

4

inability to forward the mail.

5

On May 9, 2012, an

Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria

6

persona is required to keep the Court informed of his or her

7

current address at all times.

8

in pertinent part:

9
10
11
12

Local Rule 183(b) further provides

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.

13
Because mail sent from the Court to Petitioner was returned
14
with a notation that it was undeliverable and that the postal
15
service was unable to forward it, it appears that Petitioner has
16
failed to keep the Court informed of his current address.
17
Accordingly, the Court’s consideration and ruling on
18
Respondent’s request for an extension of time to file a response
19
to the petition is DEFERRED pending resolution of the issue of
20
Petitioner’s apparent failure to keep the Court informed of his
21
current address.
22
Further, the Court’s order requiring Respondent to file a
23
response to the petition is STAYED pending resolution of the
24
issue concerning Petitioner’s address.
25
Petitioner is ORDERED to show cause within thirty (30) days
26
of the date of service of this order why the action should not be
27
dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to keep the Court informed of
28
2

1

the Petitioner’s current address.

2

Petitioner is INFORMED that a failure to respond in a timely

3

manner to this order will result in dismissal of the action for

4

failure to comply with an order of the Court and failure to

5

prosecute the action.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated:
ie14hj

May 14, 2012

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3