Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00379/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00379-0/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)

---

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 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Buford Scott Danford,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV 15-0379-PHX-DJH (MHB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Petitioner Buford Scott Danford has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The Court screened the habeas petition on March 26,

2015, and ordered Respondents to answer (Doc. 8). Further, in the screening Order, Petitioner

was directed to file and serve a notice of change of address in accordance with Rule 83.3(d) of

the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner was warned that if he failed to timely comply

with the provisions set forth in the screening Order, the action would be dismissed pursuant to

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On June 16, 2015, the docket reflected that mail was returned as undeliverable. (Doc.

20.) Having failed to notify the Court of a new address, the Court ordered that on or before

June 29, 2015, Petitioner shall either (1) file a notice of change of address; or (2) show cause

Case 2:15-cv-00379-DJH Document 23 Filed 07/01/15 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

1

 The Court’s Order to show cause was also returned as undeliverable on June 29, 2015. (Doc.

22.)

- 2 -

why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute in light of his failure to file a

notice of change of address as previously ordered by the Court.1

 (Doc. 21.)

To date, Petitioner has not responded to the Court’s Order or otherwise communicated

with the Court. Accordingly, it appearing that Petitioner has abandoned his claims, the Court

will recommend that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed for failure

to prosecute.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

That Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19) be DENIED as moot;

That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) be

DISMISSED for failure to prosecute;

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The parties shall have

fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file

specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file

a response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United

States District Court for the District of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation

may not exceed seventeen (17) pages in length. Failure timely to file objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and

Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to

Case 2:15-cv-00379-DJH Document 23 Filed 07/01/15 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 -

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 30th day of June, 2015.

Case 2:15-cv-00379-DJH Document 23 Filed 07/01/15 Page 3 of 3