Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00619/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00619-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

WO JKM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rodolfo Moreno, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-0619-PHX-SMM (ECV)

ORDER

On June 28, 2005, Petitioner filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the

United States District Court for the District of Columbia. On December 16, 2005, that court

granted Respondent’s motion to transfer the action to the District of Arizona where Petitioner

was then confined. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, which the United States Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia construed as a petition for a writ of mandamus. The

court of appeals denied the writ on June 23, 2006, but the action was not actually transferred

to this Court until March 31, 2008. The reason for the delay is not apparent from the record.

On April 1, 2008, the Clerk of Court sent a Notice of Assignment (Doc. #26) to

Petitioner at his last known address at the Federal Correctional Institution in Phoenix,

Arizona. On April 7, 2008, the Notice was returned as undeliverable. (Doc. #27.) The

Court will, therefore, dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Under Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, an unrepresented party is

required to file a notice of change of address within five days after the effective date of the

Case 2:08-cv-00619-SMM--ECV Document 28 Filed 06/18/08 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 -

change. “A party, not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the court apprised of any

changes in his mailing address.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988).

Because Petitioner has not filed a notice of change of address, an order to show cause why

this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute would be futile. See Carey, 856

F.2d at 1441 (“An order to show cause why dismissal is not warranted or an order imposing

sanctions would only find itself taking a round trip tour through the United States mail.”).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule

41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 18th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00619-SMM--ECV Document 28 Filed 06/18/08 Page 2 of 2