Moppins v. Sisto
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 9/10/10, ORDERING that within 20 days of the date of this order, Petitioner shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed as moot.(Kastilahn, A)
(HC) Moppins v. Sisto
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 vs. D. K. SISTO, Warden, et al., Respondents. / Petitioner, Frank Irvin Moppins, is a former state prisoner who is currently on parole. He is proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges the February 13, 2007 decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings ("the Board") finding him unsuitable for parole, and seeks, inter alia, a reversal of that decision and his immediate release from his allegedly unconstitutional confinement. Petitioner has had no contact with the court since submitting his Traverse on February 13, 2009. However, it appears that Petitioner was released on parole on October 19, 2009. See Respondent's Notice of Release on Parole, filed Nov. 11, 2009. Therefore, this action may be moot. It is also noted that Petitioner bears the responsibility of prosecuting this case. Petitioner is obligated to inform the court and Respondent of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely manner. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRANK IRVIN MOPPINS, Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-CV-2243 MCE CHS P
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
action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty days of the date of this order, Petitioner shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed as moot. DATED: September 10, 2010
CHARLENE H. SORRENTINO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?