Robert Mendoza v. People of the State of California

Opinion

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 2:20-cv-06495-JVS-MAA Date: October 19, 2020 Title: Robert Mendoza v. People of the State of California

Present: The Honorable MARIA A. AUDERO, United States Magistrate Judge

James Muñoz N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Petitioner: Attorneys Present for Respondent: N/A N/A

Proceedings (In Chambers): Order to Show Cause Why the Petition Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute

On July 21, 2020, the Court received and filed Petitioner Robert Mendoza’s (“Petitioner”), pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus (“Petition”). (Pet., ECF No. 1.) On July 23, 2020, in response to the filing of the Petition, the Court ordered Petitioner to file an amended petition incorporating a completed Form CV-69, this district’s form for habeas petitions by individuals in state custody, by no later than September 23, 2020 (“July 23 Order”). (July 23 Or., ECF No. 3.) The Court warned that failure to comply with the July Order would result in a recommendation that the Petition be dismissed. (Id.)

The July 23 Order and another document mailed to Petitioner by the Court both were returned to the Court undelivered. (ECF Nos. 5, 6.)

Local Rule 41-6 provides: A party proceeding pro se shall keep the Court and opposing parties apprised of such party’s current address and telephone number, if any, and e-mail address, if any. If mail directed by the Clerk to a pro se plaintiff’s address of record is returned undelivered by the Postal Service, and if, within fifteen (15) days of the service date, such plaintiff fails to notify, in writing, the Court and opposing parties of said plaintiff’s current address, the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for want of prosecution. C.D. Cal. L.R. 41-6. CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 2:20-cv-06495-JVS-MAA Date: October 19, 2020 Title: Robert Mendoza v. People of the State of California

To date, Petitioner has not responded to the July 23 Order as required. Moreover, given the mail returned to the Court undelivered, it appears that Petitioner has failed to notify the Court promptly of any change of address.

Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by no later than November 18, 2020 why the Court should not recommend that the case be dismissed for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 41-1, 41-6.

If this Order to Show Cause is returned as undelivered by the Postal Service and Petitioner does not notify the Court in writing of his current address within thirty (30) days after the service date, the Court will recommend that this lawsuit be dismissed for want of prosecution. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 41-6; Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988).

Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

It is so ordered.