Kirven v. Hollis et al
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Stephan M. Vidmar. Plaintiff must notify the Clerk of the Court in writing of his current address or otherwise show cause why his Section 2254 petition should not be dismissed by March 20, 2017. (sg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
No. 16-cv-1162 MV/SMV
FNU HOLLIS and FNU LNU,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. The record reflects that a recent mailing
to Plaintiff at the Curry County Adult Detention Center was returned as undelivered, with a
notation that “addressee not here.” See [Doc. 4]. It appears that Plaintiff has been released from
custody or transferred without advising the Court of his new address, as required by
D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.6, thus severing contact with the Court. Because Plaintiff has failed to
comply with the Court’s local rules, he will be required to show cause why his Petition Under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody [Doc. 1] should not be
dismissed. See Bradenburg v. Beaman, 632 F.2d 120, 122 (10th Cir. 1980) (“It is incumbent on
litigants, even those proceeding pro se, to follow the federal rules of procedure. The same is true
of simple, nonburdensome local rules . . . .” (citation omitted)). Failure to comply with this Order
may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice without further notice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, within 21 days from entry of this order, Plaintiff
shall notify the Clerk of the Court in writing of his current address or otherwise show cause why
his § 2254 petition should not be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
STEPHAN M. VIDMAR
United States Magistrate 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?