Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02041/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02041-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES DEWITT WRIGHT,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-2041 FCD DAD P

vs.

STATE SUPERIOR COURTS, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed October 24, 2005, the court denied petitioner’s incomplete

application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed petitioner’s defective petition for writ of

habeas corpus. The order was served on petitioner at his address of record and was returned by

the postal service marked “Return to Sender - Not deliverable as addressed - Unable to Forward.” 

It appears that petitioner has failed to comply with Local Rule 83-182(f), which requires that a

party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change. See Local Rules 83-

182(f) and 11-110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for

petitioner’s failure to keep the court apprised of his current address.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

Case 2:05-cv-02041-FCD-DAD Document 6 Filed 11/03/05 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

2

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: November 2, 2005.

DAD:13:bb

wrig2041.133a

Case 2:05-cv-02041-FCD-DAD Document 6 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 of 2