Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02216/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02216-3/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIUS DOMANTAY,

Petitioner,

 v.

E. YLST,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 05-2216 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On June 1, 2005, petitioner, a California prisoner then incarcerated at San Quentin

State Prison (“SQSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 2004 decision by the Board of

Prison Terms finding petitioner unsuitable for parole. On July 25, 2006, the Court granted in

part and denied in part respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition, and ordered respondent to

file an answer showing cause why the petition should not be granted based on petitioner’s

cognizable claim. On September 27, 2006, respondent filed an answer to the petition; on

October 12, 2006, petitioner filed a traverse. 

Thereafter, the Court was apprised that petitioner had been released on parole; as

petitioner had not communicated with the Court subsequent to the filing of his traverse, the

Court determined the action was potentially subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute,

based on petitioner’s failure to keep the Court informed of his current address. Accordingly,

Case 3:05-cv-02216-MMC Document 17 Filed 07/01/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

by order filed June 10, 2008, the Court directed both respondent and petitioner to inform the

Court of petitioner’s whereabouts, and to do so within twenty days of the date of the Court’s

order. (See Order, filed June 10, 2008, at 2.) In so ruling, the Court advised the parties that

if respondent notified the Court that petitioner no longer is incarcerated at SQSP, the action

would be dismissed for failure to prosecute, based on petitioner’s failure to keep the Court

informed of his current address; the Court further informed the parties that if petitioner

remains incarcerated at SQSP and if he failed to so notify the Court within the twenty-day

period provided, the action would be dismissed for failure to prosecute, on the alternative

ground that petitioner had failed to comply with the Court’s orders. (See id.) The Clerk was

directed to serve a copy of the order on petitioner at his most recent address of record at

SQSP. (See id.) 

On June 12, 2008, the copy of the order sent to petitioner by the Clerk on June 10,

2008, was returned from SQSP as not deliverable, with the notation “2/27/08 PAROLE REG

2” on the front of the envelope. (Docket No. 14.) On June 16, 2008, a second copy of the

order, sent to petitioner by the Clerk on June 11, 2008, likewise was returned from SQSP as

not deliverable, with the same notation made on the envelope. (Docket No. 16.) On June 17,

2008, respondent filed a response to the Court’s order; in said response, respondent states

that petitioner is on parole and no longer is incarcerated at SQSP. 

As petitioner no longer is incarcerated at SQSP and has failed to comply with the

Court’s orders to keep the Court informed of his current address, the above-titled action is

hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 1, 2008 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02216-MMC Document 17 Filed 07/01/08 Page 2 of 2