Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01592/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01592-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Neil H. Adler
Respondent
Jose Partida Vargas
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE PARTIDA VARGAS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

NEIL H. ADLER, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:08-CV-01592 MJS HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

FOR PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2241.

On April 15, 2010, the Court issued an order informing Petitioner that the instant case has

been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng. On April 28, 2010, the order served on

Petitioner was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable.

Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to keep the

court apprised of his or her current address at all times. Local Rule 183(b) provides, in pertinent

part:

If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is

returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify

the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter

Case 1:08-cv-01592-MJS Document 20 Filed 05/07/10 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without

prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Without the ability to communicate with Petitioner, the Court is unable to maintain and

faithfully adjudicate the present matter. Thus, Petitioner must inform the Court and any opposing

parties of his present address with sixty-three (63) days after the return of mail directed to Petitioner. 

ORDER

Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be

dismissed without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to prosecute based on Petitioner’s failure to

inform the Court of his current address. Petitioner is ORDERED to inform the Court and opposing

counsel of his current address on or before July 1, 2010. 

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order will result in dismissal of the petition

without prejudice pursuant to Local Rules 110 and 183(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2010 /s/ Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01592-MJS Document 20 Filed 05/07/10 Page 2 of 2