Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06002/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06002-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISRAEL MORALES, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

D. K. SISTO, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-06002 TEH (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER

TO PROVIDE COURT WITH

CURRENT ADDRESS 

On November 28, 2007, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas

corpus. On that same day, the Court sent a notification to Petitioner informing him that

he had neither paid the filing fee nor submitted a completed application for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis. The Court provided a copy of the correct in forma pauperis

application, along with a return envelope, and a notification that the case would be

dismissed if Petitioner failed to pay the fee or file the completed application within thirty

days. 

On December 26, 2007, Petitioner notified this Court that he had requested the

Inmate Trust Account Office on December 19, 2007, to complete the required “Certificate

of Funds in Prisoner’s Account” and mail it with his attached in forma pauperis

application to the Court. Petitioner requested the Court to notify him if the application

was not received. 

Having received no in forma pauperis application from Petitioner, on March 21,

2008, the Court granted Petitioner an extension of time of another thirty days by which to

file the application and reminded Petitioner “that the ultimate filing of the necessary

Case 3:07-cv-06002-TEH Document 6 Filed 06/13/08 Page 1 of 2
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

pleadings is the responsibility of Petitioner, not the Inmate Trust Account Office.” A

copy of that order granting extension of time was mailed to Petitioner and returned to the

Court on April 1, 2008, as undeliverable. See Docket no. 5. To date, Petitioner has not

updated his address with the Court, nor has he paid the filing fee or submitted an in forma

pauperis application. 

Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11 a party proceeding pro se whose

address changes while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of

address specifying the new address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may, without prejudice,

dismiss an action when: (1) mail directed to the pro se party by the Court has been

returned to the Court as not deliverable, and (2) the Court fails to receive within sixty

days of this return a written communication from the pro se party indicating a current

address. See L.R. 3-11(b). 

More than sixty days have passed since the mail directed to Petitioner by the Court

was returned as undeliverable. The Court has not received a notice from Petitioner of a

new address. In order to ascertain whether Petitioner still is incarcerated at Solano State

Prison, the Clerk shall mail this order to Petitioner at Solano State Prison. If Petitioner is

incarcerated at Solano State Prison, he shall so notify the Court within twenty (20) days

of the date this order is filed. If, however, the order is returned to the Court as not

deliverable, and Petitioner has not provided a forwarding address, the petition will be

dismissed without prejudice under Local Rule 3-11 and for failure to prosecute pursuant

to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Malone v. United States Postal

Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 133 (9th Cir. 1987) (court must consider alternatives before

dismissing the action, such as warning of dismissal), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 819 (1988).

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 06/13/08 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-06002-TEH Document 6 Filed 06/13/08 Page 2 of 2