Martin v. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California

Filing 6

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/29/2017 dismissing action for failure to provide current address and as moot. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIAL MARTIN, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 15 No. 1:17-cv-01011-DAD-MJS v. U.S. DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A CURRENT ADDRESS AND AS MOOT Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner initiated this action on July 31, 2017, by filing a 19 petition stating that he was incarcerated at the Fresno County Jail pending release from Bureau of 20 Prisons (“BOP”) custody. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner requested that he be moved to a BOP facility 21 in order to receive re-entry services unavailable to him at the jail. (Id. at 3.) 22 On August 7, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge ordered petitioner to show cause why 23 the action should not be dismissed as moot in light of his apparent subsequent transfer to a BOP 24 facility. (Doc. No. 4.) On August 14, 2017, case initiating documents previously sent to 25 petitioner’s address of record at the Fresno County Jail were returned to the court as 26 undeliverable. A review of online BOP records reflects that petitioner was released from prison 27 on September 8, 2017. See . 28 ///// 1 1 Local Rule 183(b) requires a party proceeding pro se to keep the court apprised of his 2 current address: “If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the 3 U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within 4 sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without 5 prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Here, more than sixty-three days have passed without 6 petitioner providing the court with his current address. Moreover, since the only relief sought by 7 petitioner was his return to a BOP facility from the Fresno County Jail pending his ultimate 8 release from custody, this action has been rendered moot. See Fendler v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 9 846 F.2d 550, 555 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding a petitioner’s § 2241 petition was moot because he had 10 11 already been released on parole and did not challenge the validity of the original conviction). Accordingly, the action is hereby dismissed without prejudice, both due to petitioner’s 12 failure to provide the court with a current address and because this habeas action has been 13 rendered moot by his release from custody. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: November 29, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?