Opinion
EDCV23-01248-KK (DTB)
01-25-2024
MADALENE TIGGLE, Petitioner, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING FAILURE TO UPDATE ADDRESS
DAVID T. BRISTOW UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On June 27, 2023, petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus herein. (Dkt. # 1.) On November 17, 2023, the previously assigned Magistrate Judge issued an Order Governing Proceedings Involving Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Order”). (Dkt. # 4.) The matter was transferred to this Court's calendar on November 22, 2023 (“Transfer Order”). (Dkt. # 6.) On December 8, 2023, the Court received its Order returned from the institution marked as “Return to Sender Not in Custody.” (Dkt. # 8.) On December 18, 2023, the Court received its Transfer Order returned from the institution marked as “Address Unknown.” (Dkt. # 14.) On December 20, 2023, respondent filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time to File a Motion to Dismiss or Answer (“Motion”) (Dkt. # 12).
On the same day, the Court granted the Motion (“Order Granting Motion”) (Dkt. # 13). Also on December 20, 2023, the Court issued a Minute Order (“Minute Order”) (Dkt. # 15), wherein petitioner was advised that within 15 days of the date of the Minute Order, she was to provide the Court with her current address and failure to so could result in the dismissal of this action. On January 2 and 4, 2024, the Order Granting Motion was returned from the institution marked as “Return to Sender Not in Custody” (Dkt. # 16, 17). On January 16, 2024, the Court's Minute Order was also returned from the institution marked as “Return to Sender Not in Custody” (Dkt. # 21).
Pro se litigants are required to keep the Court and opposing parties apprised of their current address. Central District of California Local Rule 41-6. Therefore, petitioner is ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failing to comply with the Court's Local Rules. Petitioner may alternatively file a Notice of Change of Address to discharge this Order to Show Cause. Petitioner's response is due no later than February 7, 2024.
Petitioner is hereby cautioned that failing to comply with this Order will result in the recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court's Local Rules.