1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSEFER CORIA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00066-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO 13 v. PROSECUTE 1 14 B.M. TRATE, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 19 Petitioner Jessefer Coria (“Petitioner”) initiated this action by filing a pro se petition for 20 writ of habeas corpus under

on January 17, 2023, while incarcerated at United 21 States Penitentiary (“USP”) Atwater, located in Merced County, California, which is within the 22 venue and jurisdiction of this Court. (Doc. No. 1, “Petition”). For the reasons set forth below, 23 the Court dismisses this action pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule for failure to prosecute. 24 Specifically, Petitioner failed to keep the Court appraised of a current address 25 BACKGROUND 26 On May 3, 2023, the undersigned granted Respondent an extension of time to respond to 27 1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, in accordance with

636(c)(1). (Doc. No. 12). 1 the Petition. (Doc. No. 14). Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss in response to the Petition on 2 May 9, 2023. (Doc. No. 15). On May 22, 2023, the May 3, 2023 Order was returned to the Clerk 3 as undeliverable as Petitioner was no longer at the facility. See docket. Petitioner has not filed an 4 updated address as required by Local Rule 182(f) and the time to do so has expired. 5 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 6 Petitioner was obligated to keep this Court informed of his proper address. Specifically: 7 [a] party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail 8 directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court 9 and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice 10 for failure to prosecute. 11 Local Rule 183(b); see also Local Rule 182(f) (all parties are “under a continuing duty” to notify 12 the clerk of “any change of address[.]”). Petitioner was notified of his obligation to keep the 13 Court informed of his address and advised that the Court would dismiss an action without 14 prejudice if Petitioner does not update his address within sixty-three (63) days. (Doc. No. 2-2 at 15 4). Petitioner’s change of address was due no later than July 24, 2023. As of the date of this 16 Order, Petitioner has not filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss nor filed a change of address 17 and the time within which to do so has expired. 18 Precedent supports a dismissal of a case when a litigant does not keep the court appraised 19 on his address. Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming lower court and finding 20 no abuse of discretion when district court dismissed case without prejudice after pro se plaintiff 21 did not comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs keep court apprised of addresses at all 22 times); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal proper for failure to 23 prosecute and comply with local rules of court); Hanley v. Opinski,

(E.D. Cal. 24 July 10, 2018) (dismissing action for failure to prosecute and to provide court with current 25 address); Davis v. Kern Valley State Prison, No. 1:22-CV-1489-JLT-EPG (PC),

2992980, at *1, fn 1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2023). More than sixty-three (63) days has passed since 27 the Court’s May 2, 2023 Order was returned as undeliverable on May 22, 2023, and Petitioner has 28 not filed a notice of change of address. 1 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 2 1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 183(b) for 3 Petitioner’s failure to prosecute this action. 4 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate any pending motions/deadlines and close 5 this case. 6 | Dated: _ August 10,2023 Mile. Th fareh Hack 8 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28