Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02417/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02417-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS F. RISELEY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2417 DFL JFM P 

vs.

WARDEN, PLEASANT 

VALLEY STATE PRISON,

Respondent. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed June 8, 2005, petitioner was ordered to file a motion to stay these

proceedings or file a request to voluntarily dismiss his sixth and seventh claims, as petitioner’s

application is a mixed petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims for relief. That

order was returned marked undeliverable. On June 16, 2005, the order was re-served to plaintiff

at his current address of record. On June 20, 2005, that order was returned marked

undeliverable, “inmate no longer at MCSP.” Thirty days from that re-service date have now

expired, and petitioner has not filed a motion to stay or a request to voluntarily dismiss his two

unexhausted claims or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Although it appears from the file that petitioner’s copies of the order were

returned, petitioner was properly served. It is the petitioner’s responsibility to keep the court

Case 2:04-cv-02417-JKS-JFM Document 18 Filed 07/22/05 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

2

apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(f), service of

documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: July 21, 2005.

/001;rise2417.ftc

Case 2:04-cv-02417-JKS-JFM Document 18 Filed 07/22/05 Page 2 of 2