Artem Semenov v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ARTEM SEMENOV, No. 1:25-cv-00598-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED FOR PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO KEEP THE COURT APPRISED OF HIS WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE CURRENT ADDRESS AND TO OBEY A ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, COURT ORDER AND THE LOCAL RULES Respondent. (Docs. 2, 14) 14-DAY DEADLINE 18 Relevant Background 19 Petitioner Artem Semenov (“Petitioner”), a federal detainee, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). On May 21, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant petition while in custody of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Golden State Annex, located in McFarland, California. Id. Petitioner is currently in the custody of ICE at the Golden State Annex. Id. 24 Following a preliminary review of the petition and finding that it is not clear from the face of the petition whether Petitioner is entitled to relief, on May 23, 2025, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response to Petitioner’s petition within 60 days of the date of service of the order. (Doc. 4). On July 7, 2025, Respondent timely filed a motion to dismiss the petition, making Petitioner’s opposition due on or before August 7, 2025. (Doc. 10). Respondent’s motion includes a proof of service reflecting that a copy of the motion was served on Petitioner. Id. Instead of filing an opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss, on July 31, 2025, Petitioner lodged a first amended habeas petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 11).

4 On August 11, 2025, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause in writing why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with Local Rules and to obey a court order for failing to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending motion to dismiss. (Doc.

7 12). In compliance with the order, Petitioner timely filed an opposition to the pending motion to dismiss. (Doc. 13).

9 On October 17, 2025, the Court entered an order (1) finding Petitioner’s amended petition improperly filed and thereby disregarded and (2) requiring Respondents to file a copy of Petitioner’s order of removal and a supplemental brief addressing the impact of the removal order on these proceedings. (Doc. 14). On October 28, 2025, service of the order by mail on Petitioner at his last known address—P.O. Box 1518, 611 Frontage Road, McFarland, CA 93250—was returned as “Undeliverable, Not in Custody.” (See Dkt. 10/28/2025).

15 Order to Show Cause 16 Local Rule 110, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

27 As explained in the Court’s first informational order, a party appearing pro se must keep the Court advised of his current address. (Doc. 2 at 2). Local Rule 182(f) provides that a “pro se | party is under a continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of | address .... Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior address of the ... pro se party | shall be fully effective.” Local Rule 182(f). Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), if mail directed to a || pro se petitioner “is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such [petitioner] fails to notify the | Court and opposing parties within thirty (30) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may | dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Local Rule 183(b).

7 Here, Petitioner has failed to file a notice of change of address and the time to do so has | passed. This case is unable to proceed without Petitioner’s participation and compliance with his | continuing duty to notify the Court of any change of address. (Doc. 2 at 2) (citing Local Rule 182); || see Local Rule 183(b). Accordingly, the Court will direct Petitioner to show cause in writing why | sanctions should not be imposed for failure keep the Court apprised of his current address and to | obey a Court order and the Local Rules. Petitioner will be permitted to comply with this order to | show cause in the alternative by filing a notice of change of address.

14 Conclusion and Order 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Petitioner is ORDERED to show cause in writing within 14 days of the date of service 17 of this order why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to keep the Court 18 apprised of his current address and to obey the Court’s order and the Local Rules, as set 19 forth herein. Alternatively, Petitioner may comply with this order by filing by that same 20 deadline a notice of change of address.

21 2. Any failure by Petitioner to timely respond to this Order will result in the dismissal 22 of this action, without prejudice, for Petitioner’s failure to comply with the Local 23 Rules and to obey a court order. | Ir Is SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ December 2, 2025 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE