Adams v. Baker et al

Filing 18

ORDER - # 11 Motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability. FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 6/16/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8

DANIEL PATRICK ADAMS,

9

Petitioner,

10

vs.

11

3:14-cv-00504-RCJ-WGC

RENEE BAKER, et al.,

ORDER
12
13

Respondents.
_____________________________/

14
15

In this habeas corpus action, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss on January 30, 2015

16

(ECF No. 11). The pro se petitioner, Daniel Patrick Adams, has not responded to that motion.

17

On May 11, 2015, the court, sua sponte, granted Adams an extension of time, to June 12, 2015, to

18

respond to the motion to dismiss, and the court warned that the time to respond to the motion to

19

dismiss will not be further extended. See Order entered May 11, 2015 (ECF No. 17). Adams still

20

did not respond to the motion to dismiss.

21

In the May 11 order, the court noted that Adams is no longer incarcerated, that it appears that

22

Adams may no longer be at the most recent address he has provided to the court, and that Adams

23

apparently has not kept the court informed of his current address as required by LSR 2-2. Id. The

24

court ordered Adams to respond no later than June 12, 2015, to indicate that the address he has

25

provided to the court remains valid. Id. The court warned that if Adams failed to respond by

26

June 12, 2015, the court would conclude that he is no longer receiving service of documents from the

1

court at the address he has provided, and the court will dismiss this action pursuant to LSR 2-2.

2

Adams did not respond by June 12, 2015. Therefore, this case will be dismissed, without prejudice,

3

for the petitioner’s failure to keep the court informed of his current address as required by LSR 2-2.

4
5

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) is
DENIED, as it is moot.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall enter judgment accordingly.

9
10

Dated this 16th day of June, 2015.
Dated this _____ day of June, 2015.

11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2