Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03288/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03288-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUSTIN PAIVA

Petitioner,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

No. C 08-3288 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On July 8, 2008, petitioner, a prisoner incarcerated at the Santa Rita County Jail and

proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the denial of time credits by the California Department of

Corrections for the period during which petitioner was incarcerated on a parole violation.

That same date, the Clerk of the Court mailed petitioner a notice that the action was deficient

due to petitioner’s failure to pay the requisite filing fee or, instead, to submit a completed

court-approved in forma pauperis application. On July 15, 2008, said notice was returned to

the Court as undeliverable because petitioner was not at the address he had provided to the

Court in his petition. 

Pursuant to the Civil Local Rules of this district, “a party proceeding pro se whose

address changes while an action is pending must promptly file with the Court and serve upon

all opposing parties a Notice of Change of Address specifying the new address.” See Civ. L.

R. 3-11(a). Where mail directed to such party “has been returned to the Court as not

Case 3:08-cv-03288-MMC Document 4 Filed 09/19/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

deliverable” and “the Court fails to receive within 60 days of this return a written

communication from . . . the pro se party indicating a current address,” the Court “may

dismiss the complaint without prejudice.” See Civ. L.R. 3-11(b). 

Here, more than sixty days have passed since petitioner’s mail was returned to the

Court as undeliverable and petitioner has not notified the Court of his correct current address. 

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

The Clerk shall close the file.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 19, 2008 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:08-cv-03288-MMC Document 4 Filed 09/19/08 Page 2 of 2