Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06397/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06397-0/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DARRYL BALDWIN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ROBERT W. FOX, Acting Warden,1

Respondent. 

Case No. 06-cv-06397-SBA (PR) 

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER 

TO FILE NOTICE OF INTENT TO 

PROSECUTE AND AMENDED 

PETITION, IF APPLICABLE 

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. On April 13, 2007, the Court issued an Order granting Petitioner’s request 

for a stay of proceedings while he returned to state court to exhaust his state judicial 

remedies. The Court also stated: “Nothing further will take place in this action until 

Petitioner receives a final decision from the California Supreme Court and, within thirty 

(30) days of doing so, moves to reopen the action, lift the Court’s stay and amend the 

stayed petition to add the newly-exhausted claims.” Dkt. 11 at 3. 

On May 24, 2007, Petitioner filed a letter to the Clerk of the Court, informing the 

Clerk that his state proceedings had concluded; however, he did not move to reopen the 

action or to amend the stayed petition to add the newly-exhausted claims. Dkt. 12. 

Petitioner has not communicated with the Court since 2007. Because Petitioner failed to 

follow-up his letter with the aforementioned filing requirements, nothing took place in this 

action. However, the Court has recently reviewed this case and has determined that 

because of the length of time since Petitioner’s last communication with the Court, it is 

 1 Robert W. Fox, the current acting warden of the prison where Petitioner is 

incarcerated, has been substituted as Respondent pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 4:06-cv-06397-SBA Document 13 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 3
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

unclear whether he intends to continue to pursue the claims set forth in his 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. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 133 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Furthermore, pursuant to 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. Petitioner shall 

file a notice of continued intent to prosecute, as directed below. 

If Petitioner files a timely notice of continued intent to prosecute, he must also file 

an amended petition in this Court which incorporates the newly-exhausted claims he 

intends to raise in federal court, as further directed below. 

Finally, Clerk’s Office staff has determined that Petitioner has since been 

transferred from California State Prison-Solano to the California Medical Facility. The 

Clerk shall update Petitioner’s address and send his copy of this Order to his new address. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons outlined above, the Court orders as follows: 

1. Petitioner shall file a notice of continued intent to prosecute no later than 

twenty-eight (28) 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). 

Case 4:06-cv-06397-SBA Document 13 Filed 05/11/15 Page 2 of 3
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

2. If Petitioner files a timely notice of continued intent to prosecute, then no 

later than twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this Order, he must also file an amended 

petition in this Court which incorporates the newly-exhausted claims he intends to raise in 

federal court. The Court will lift the stay on the date that Petitioner files his amended 

petition. Petitioner must submit the amended petition on the attached blank habeas petition 

form, clearly label the petition as the “Amended Petition,” and write in the case number for 

this action—C 06-6397 SBA (PR)—on the form. He should also attach to his amended 

petition a copy of his petition to the California Supreme Court, if the document is available 

to him. If Petitioner fails to file an amended petition within the prescribed period, the 

Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

3. The Clerk shall update Petitioner’s address as: California Medical Facility, 

P.O. Box 2000, Vacaville, California 95696-2000. 

4. The Clerk shall send Petitioner a blank § 2254 habeas petition form. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 5/11/15 

____________________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.06\Baldwin6397.FileAmPet&NotOfIntent2Pros.docx 

Case 4:06-cv-06397-SBA Document 13 Filed 05/11/15 Page 3 of 3