Free Order Dismissing Case - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00710-MMC

Document 3

Filed 05/15/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) No. C 08-0710 MMC (PR) ) ) Petitioner, ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL ) v. ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) ) Respondent. _______________________________ ) JOSE B. HERNANDEZ, On November 30, 2007, petitioner, a prisoner incarcerated at the ICE Federal Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona, and proceeding pro se, filed, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, a "Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody." On January 3, 2008, the Central District construed said motion as a habeas petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as petitioner sought to challenge a 2006 conviction obtained in Santa Clara County Superior Court; further, because Santa Clara County is located within the Northern District of California, the action was transferred to this district. On January 30, 2008, the petition was filed in the Northern District and assigned to the undersigned. That same date, the Clerk of the Court sent petitioner a notice explaining the Northern District's electronic filing requirements in cases where one of the parties is unrepresented. On March 4, 2008, the notice was returned to the Court as undeliverable because petitioner was not at the address he had provided in his petition.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 3:08-cv-00710-MMC

Document 3

Filed 05/15/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Pursuant to the Civil Local Rules of this district, "a party proceeding pro se whose address changes while an action is pending must promptly file with the Court and serve upon all opposing parties a Notice of Change of Address specifying the new address." See Civ. L. R. 3-11(a). Where mail directed to such party "has been returned to the Court as not deliverable" and "the Court fails to receive within 60 days of this return a written communication from . . . the pro se party indicating a current address," the Court "may dismiss the complaint without prejudice." See Civ. L.R. 3-11(b). Here, more than sixty days have passed since petitioner's mail was returned to the Court as undeliverable and petitioner has not notified the Court of his correct current address. Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk shall close the file.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: May 15, 2008 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2