Opinion
CV 20-6040-KS
10-14-2021
Muoi Van Duong v. Stew Sherman
Present: The Honorable: Karen L. Stevenson. United States Magistrate Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: NO REPLY FILED
Petitioner Muoi Van Duong initiated this habeas action as a state prisoner proceeding pro se. At the time Petitioner filed his pending Petition, he was incarcerated at California State Prison, Corcoran. (Dkt. No. 1.)
On August 2, 2021, Respondent filed an Answer to the Petition. (Dkt. No. 31.) According to the Proof of Service attached to the Answer, a copy of Respondent's Answer was placed in the U.S. Mail for service on Petitioner the day it was filed. (Dkt. No. 31 at 55.) Pursuant to the Court's scheduling order. Petitioner's Reply was then due 30 days after service of Respondent's Answer. (Dkt. No. 16 at 3-4.) More than a month has passed since Petitioner's Reply was due and he has not filed it or requested an extension of time to do so.
However, the Court notes that Petitioner relocated to a new a address around the time the Answer was filed. On August 9, 2021, an item of mail addressed to Petitioner at Corcoran was returned to the Court from the U.S. Postal Service after being refused by the facility. (Dkt. No. 35.) The next day, on August 11, 2021, Petitioner filed a notice of change of address with the Court. (Dkt. No. 36.) The notice reflected that Petitioner had relocated to a residence in Oxnard, California. (Id.) On August 17, 2021, two additional items of mail were returned to the Court as imdeliverable from Petitioner's address at Corcoran. (Dkt. Nos. 37, 38.)
On September 27, 2021, Petitioner resubmitted his change of address and requested the status of his case. (Dkt No. 39.)
Petitioner is admonished that the Court does not provide status reports. However, in the interests of justice - specifically due to the possibility Petitioner did not receive service of Respondent's Answer due to the timing of his change of residence - the Court directs the Clerk to serve a copy of Respondent's Answer (dkt. no. 31), plus the three items of returned mail (dkt. Nos. 35, 37, 38) on Petitioner at his new address, 1614 Hilaria Street, Oxnard, CA 93030.
Further, Petitioner IS ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before November 4, 2021, why the Court should not deem the matter ready for decision and take it under submission without a reply.
Petitioner may discharge this Order in one of three ways: (1) file and serve his Reply to Respondent's Answer on or before November 4, 2021; (2) file and serve a timely request for an extension of time to file the Reply; or (3) timely notify the Court of his intention not to file a reply. THE COURT WILL DEEM PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THIS ORDER BY NOVEMBER 4, 2021 AS HIS INTENTION NOT TO FILE A REPLY AND THE MATTER WILL BE CONSIDERED FULLY SUBMITTED FOR DECISION.
Alternatively, if Petitioner no longer wishes to proceed with this case, he may file a signed document entitled "Notice of Dismissar' in which he requests the voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.