Branham v. Klingler

Filing 21

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White: This action is, in all respects, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. (case terminated) (acg, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA OSCAR HENRY BRANHAM, Petitioner, v. KEN KLINGER, Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CIV 15-365-RAW-KEW OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on August 6, 2015, requesting restoration of earned credits that were revoked following his prison disciplinary hearing (Dkt. 1). The respondent filed an answer to the petition on July 6, 2016, alleging the petition should be denied and that Petitioner had been released from custody (Dkt. 19). On July 18, 2016, mail sent to Petitioner by the Court was returned, marked “Return to Sender, Vacant, Unable to Forward” (Dkt. 20). Petitioner has not advised the Court of his current address, as required by the Court’s local rule: All papers shall contain the name, mailing address, daytime telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address, if any, of the attorney or pro se litigant. If any of this information changes, the attorney or pro se litigant must notify the Court by filing the form provided by the Clerk and serving a copy on opposing counsel or pro se parties. . . .” Local Civil Rule 5.6(a). Because Petitioner has failed to comply with Local Civil Rule 5.6(a), this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See United States ex rel. Geminis v. Health Net, Inc., 400 F.3d 853, 854-56 (10th Cir. 2005) (dismissing appeal sua sponte for failure to prosecute because appellant disappeared and failed to meet court deadlines). ACCORDINGLY, this action is, in all respects, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of May 2017. Dated this 9th day of May, 2017. J4h4i0 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?