Martin v. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
U.S. DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO PROVIDE A CURRENT
ADDRESS AND AS MOOT
Petitioner is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner initiated this action on July 31, 2017, by filing a
petition stating that he was incarcerated at the Fresno County Jail pending release from Bureau of
Prisons (“BOP”) custody. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner requested that he be moved to a BOP facility
in order to receive re-entry services unavailable to him at the jail. (Id. at 3.)
On August 7, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge ordered petitioner to show cause why
the action should not be dismissed as moot in light of his apparent subsequent transfer to a BOP
facility. (Doc. No. 4.) On August 14, 2017, case initiating documents previously sent to
petitioner’s address of record at the Fresno County Jail were returned to the court as
undeliverable. A review of online BOP records reflects that petitioner was released from prison
on September 8, 2017. See http://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ .
Local Rule 183(b) requires a party proceeding pro se to keep the court apprised of his
current address: “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.” Here, more than sixty-three days have passed without
petitioner providing the court with his current address. Moreover, since the only relief sought by
petitioner was his return to a BOP facility from the Fresno County Jail pending his ultimate
release from custody, this action has been rendered moot. See Fendler v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons,
846 F.2d 550, 555 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding a petitioner’s § 2241 petition was moot because he had
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
failure to provide the court with a current address and because this habeas action has been
rendered moot by his release from custody. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 29, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?