Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-00066/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-00066-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roberto E. Garay
Petitioner
James A. Yates
Respondent

Document Text:

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 1

 Petitioner filed a change of address on September 2, 2004, and he has not communicated with the

Court since that date.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERTO E. GARAY,

Petitioner,

 v.

JAMES A. YATES, Warden,

Respondent. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-0066 SBA (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE A

NOTICE OF INTENT TO PROSECUTE AND

TO PROVIDE COURT WITH CURRENT

ADDRESS

On January 6, 2003, Petitioner, a State prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

It has been almost a year-and-a-half since Petitioner has communicated with the Court.1

Because of the length of time since Petitioner's last communication with the Court, it is 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. United States 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 his

current address and his continued intent to prosecute no later than twenty (20) days of the date of

this Order. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to

Case 4:03-cv-00066-SBA Document 17 Filed 03/06/06 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

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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 6, 2006

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-00066-SBA Document 17 Filed 03/06/06 Page 2 of 2