Opinion
2:23-05491 DMG (ADS)
01-23-2024
Billy E. Harrison v. Judge Janine M. Chunge et al.
Present: The Honorable Autumn D. Spaeth, United States Magistrate Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING DISMISSAL
Pending before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”) filed by Billy E. Harrison (“Petitioner”), a patient at the Department of State Hospitals in Patton, California. (Dkt. No. 1.) On December 8, 2023, the Court issued an Order Regarding Screening of Petition because the Petition is subject to dismissal (the “Screening Order”). (Dkt. No. 9.) Petitioner was required to file a response to the Court by January 8, 2024. (Id.) Despite mailing the Screening Order to Petitioner's address of record, the Screening Order was returned in the mail on January 5, 2024. (Dkt. No. 10.) Petitioner has not filed a response to the Screening Order or otherwise communicated with the Court as of the date of this Order.
Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and follow court orders by no later than February 6, 2024. Petitioner may respond to this Order by filing a response to the Court's Screening Order (Dkt. No. 9).
If Petitioner no longer wishes to pursue his claims, he may request a voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). For Petitioner's convenience, the Clerk of Court is directed to attach a Notice of Dismissal Form (CV-09) to this Order.
Petitioner is expressly warned that failing to comply with this Order or failing to keep the Court apprised of his current address will result in the recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute or to obey Court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 41-6.
This order is nondispositive. However, if Petitioner believes this order erroneously disposes of any of his claims or precludes any relief sought, he may file objections with the district judge within 20 days of the date of the order. See Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2015).
IT IS SO ORDERED.