Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00821/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00821-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEROME LEE CROSS,

Petitioner,

v.

RICK RILL,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00821-LJO-JDP

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

RESPONSE DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

ECF No. 1

Petitioner Jerome Lee Cross, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The most recent order in this case was returned to 

the court as undeliverable and petitioner has failed to update his address with the court. We will 

order petitioner to show cause why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Discussion

On June 15, 2018, petitioner filed the instant petition, seeking relief from his conviction 

for felony possession of an alcoholic beverage while incarcerated. Id. Petitioner stated that he 

expected to be released from state custody this year, ECF No. 17 at 24, and it appears that 

petitioner has been released.1 Meanwhile, petitioner’s federal habeas petition remains pending 

 

1 We have reviewed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s inmate locator 

listing for the petitioner and take judicial notice of it per Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of 

Evidence. See California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Inmate Locator, 

https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/ (search “Search for Inmate” for “Jerome Cross”). The inmate 

Case 1:18-cv-00821-NONE-JDP Document 21 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

2

before this court. Petitioner’s most recent filing in this case was made on December 12, 2018. 

ECF No. 17. In our last substantive order in the case, filed August 1, 2019, we granted 

petitioner’s motion to amend his petition. ECF No. 19. Although he was not required to do so,

petitioner did not file an amended petition. On March 2, 2020, an administrative order directed to 

petitioner was returned to the court as undeliverable. For petitioner to avoid dismissal of his 

petition for failure to prosecute, a notice of change of address was due by May 11, 2020. See

Local Rule 183(b). The court has not received an updated address.

To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines on litigants and requires 

litigants to meet those deadlines. The court may dismiss a case for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 

(9th Cir. 2005). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to 

administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. 

Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The court will give petitioner a 

chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for his failure to prosecute. 

Petitioner’s failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order 

and will result in dismissal of the petition.

Order

Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, petitioner must show cause why 

the court should not dismiss his case for failure to prosecute. 

 

locator states that there are “no records matching that criteria.” Even so, a lack of custody does 

not render the instant petition moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). But, once 

custody has ended, “some concrete and continuing injury” other than detention—a “collateral 

consequence”—must exist if a habeas petition is to be maintained. See id. When a habeas 

petitioner challenges his underlying criminal conviction, as the petitioner has done here, collateral 

consequences are presumed to exist, even after a petitioner has been released from custody. See 

id. 

Case 1:18-cv-00821-NONE-JDP Document 21 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:18-cv-00821-NONE-JDP Document 21 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 3