Lucero v. McDonald

Filing 9

ORDER to Petitioner to File UPDATED ADDRESS INFORMATION and Explanation within Fourteen (14) Days or Face Dismissal of the 1 Petition signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/16/2010. Address Deadline: 1/6/2011.(Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
-SKO (HC) Lucero v. McDonald Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ALBERT ANDREW LUCERO, 11 Petitioner, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1), v. MIKE D. McDONALD, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:10-cv--01714-AWI-SKO-HC ORDER TO PETITIONER TO FILE UPDATED ADDRESS INFORMATION AND EXPLANATION WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS OR FACE DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION (DOC. 1) DEADLINE: FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Petitioner has 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 a signed writing filed by Petitioner on December 2, 2010 (doc. 8), and entered on the docket on December 10, 2010. Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to keep the Court informed of his or her 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 current address at all times. in pertinent part: 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. Review of the Court's docket reveals that in the instant 8 case, the Court's order authorizing in forma pauperis status was 9 served by mail on Petitioner on September 21, 2010. 10 1, 2010, the mail was returned as undeliverable and unable to 11 forward. 12 transfer and prisoner new case documents and order regarding 13 consent were returned with the same notations. 14 2010, the Clerk entered on the docket Petitioner's consent to 15 jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge, which was docketed as filed 16 as of December 2, 2010. 17 the original address of Petitioner as of the time the petition 18 was filed in Sacramento in September, 2010, and transferred here 19 on September 20, 2010, namely, High Desert State Prison (HDSP) at 20 Susanville, California. 21 It therefore appears that Petitioner delayed in giving the 22 Court updated address information for more than sixty days. 23 is also uncertain whether the Court has Petitioner's correct 24 address information. 25 Petitioner is INFORMED that his delay in informing the Court 26 of current address information constitutes a failure to comply 27 with an order and rule of the Court pursuant to Local Rule 110. 28 2 It Further, the docket continues to reflect On December 10, Again on October 8, 2010, an order of intra-district On October 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 screened and will be dismissed for Petitioner's failure to prosecute and comply with the rules and orders of the Court. Accordingly, Petitioner shall SUBMIT to the Court updated address information and an explanation for his 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. Dated: ie14hj December 16, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?