Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed Travis Sulton’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition without prejudice. The dismissal was based on Petitioner’s failure to update his address, comply with court orders and local rules, and prosecute the action after court mail was returned as undeliverable. The court applied the factors governing dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to obey court orders.
Holdings
- A district court may dismiss an action without prejudice when a pro se petitioner fails to maintain a current address, comply with court orders and local rules, and prosecute the action, after consideration of the applicable dismissal factors and less drastic alternatives.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court could dismiss the § 2241 petition without prejudice after petitioner failed to update his address, obey court orders and local rules, and prosecute the action.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (10)
- Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-62 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987)(followed)
- Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)(followed)
- In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
- Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 2019)(followed)
- Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)(followed)
- Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
- Anderson v. Air W., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…