UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:25-cv-06004-AB-AJR Date: November 14, 2025 Page 1 of 3

Title: Robert Parhizgar v. B. Birkholz, Warden

DOCKET ENTRY: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO UPDATE ADDRESS OF RECORD

PRESENT:

HONORABLE A. JOEL RICHLIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

_ Claudia Garcia-Marquez_ _______None_______ __None__ Deputy Clerk Court Reporter/Recorder Tape No.

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

None Present None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS)

On July 1, 2025, pro se Petitioner Robert Parhizgar (“Petitioner”), a federal inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) at FCI Lompoc II Satellite Camp (“FCI Lompoc II”), filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody under

(the “Petition”). (Dkt. 1.) On August 6, 2025, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition (the “Motion to Dismiss”). (Dkt. 6.) Petitioner filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on August 25, 2025. (Dkt. 10.) On October 24, 2025, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) recommending that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be granted and that the action be dismissed without prejudice. (Dkt. 15.) Petitioner was permitted until November 13, 2025 to file Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Id.)

On November 4, 2025, the Court received the R&R, which had been mailed to Petitioner’s address of record at Federal Prison Camp, 3705 W. Farm Road, Lompoc, CA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:25-cv-06004-AB-AJR Date: November 14, 2025 Page 2 of 3

Title: Robert Parhizgar v. B. Birkholz, Warden

93436, returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable. (Dkts. 17-18) The returned envelope bore the notation “RTS,” which appears to stand for “Return to Sender.” (Id.) Petitioner is advised that pursuant to the Central District’s Local Rules, parties proceeding pro se must maintain a current address of record. Local Rule 11-3.8 requires the first page of all documents filed with the Court to contain the address “of the attorney or a party appearing pro se presenting the document.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 11-3.8. Local Rule 41-6 also requires a party proceeding pro se to keep the Court and all other parties informed of the party’s current address: A party proceeding pro se must keep the Court and all other parties informed of the party’s current address as well as any telephone number and email address. If a Court order or other mail served on a pro se [petitioner] at his address of record is returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable and the pro se party has not filed a notice of change of address within 14 days of the service date of the order or other Court document, the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

C.D. Cal. L.R. 41-6 (emphasis added).

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that “[a] party, not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the court apprised of any changes in his mailing address,” and that dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) is proper when a pro se litigant fails to do so. Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988).

The Court must have a current address of record for all parties to ensure proper service and receipt of filings. Petitioner is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by November 28, 2025, why the Court should not recommend that this action be dismissed either with or without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 41-6 for failure to provide an updated mailing address. Petitioner may satisfy this Order by filing a response with a current mailing address. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:25-cv-06004-AB-AJR Date: November 14, 2025 Page 3 of 3

Title: Robert Parhizgar v. B. Birkholz, Warden

The Court will mail this Order to Petitioner’s current address of record because it has no other address on file. If Petitioner does not provide an updated address, then the Court has no way of communicating with Petitioner and cannot ensure that Petitioner receives the Court’s orders.

Petitioner is expressly warned that failure to timely file a response to this Order to Show Cause will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed either with or without prejudice for failure to prosecute and obey court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), as well as for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.