Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04190/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04190-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

MARTHA K. MONTOYA, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

SCHELIA A. CLARK, Acting Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-04190 TEH (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING

PETITIONER TO FILE A

NOTICE OF INTENT TO

PROSECUTE AND TO

PROVIDE COURT WITH

CURRENT ADDRESS

Petitioner, a federal inmate, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2251, challenging the execution of her sentence. 

According to the petition, the end date of her sentence is March 4, 2008. The

date has passed, and it possible that petitioner is no longer in custody. 

Furthermore, Petitioner has not communicated with the Court since filing the

petition on August 15, 2007. Because of the length of time since Petitioner's last

communication with the Court, it is unclear whether she intends to continue to

pursue the claims set forth in her habeas petition at this time. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court may sua

sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. 

See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962); McKeever v. Block, 932

F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). But such a dismissal should only be ordered when

the failure to comply is unreasonable. See id. The court should afford the

litigant prior notice of its intention to dismiss. See Malone v. United States

Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 133 (9th Cir. 1987). Furthermore, pursuant to

Case 3:07-cv-04190-TEH Document 2 Filed 03/21/08 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 2

Northern District Local Rule 3-11, a party proceeding pro se whose address

changes while an action is pending must promptly file and serve upon all

opposing parties a notice of change of address specifying the new address. See

L.R. 3-11(a). 

Accordingly, it is in the interests of justice and judicial efficiency for the

Court to establish whether Petitioner intends to continue to prosecute this action. 

See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b)

applicable in habeas cases). Petitioner shall file a notice of her current address

and her continued intent to prosecute no later than twenty (20) days of the date

of this Order. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action without

prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. See Malone, 833 F.2d at 133 (the district court should afford the

litigant prior notice before dismissing for failure to prosecute).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 20, 2008 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-04190-TEH Document 2 Filed 03/21/08 Page 2 of 2