Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Sakhanskiy, 2:13-cr-0160 MCE-AC-1. (2020)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20200205c66 Visitors: 6
Filed: Feb. 04, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 04, 2020
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . On September 12, 2019, movant Alexander Sakhanskiy, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. ECF No. 238. The matter was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c). ECF No. 239. By order filed September 24, 2019, the undersigned set a briefing schedule for this matter. ECF No. 240. Movant sought extend
More

ORDER

On September 12, 2019, movant Alexander Sakhanskiy, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 238. The matter was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c). ECF No. 239.

By order filed September 24, 2019, the undersigned set a briefing schedule for this matter. ECF No. 240. Movant sought extended time to file an initial supporting memorandum. ECF No. 242. On October 8, 2019, the court granted the request, provided movant thirty (30) days to file his supporting memorandum, and extended the deadlines for the remaining briefing. ECF No. 243.

On November 19, 2019, no supporting memorandum having been filed, the court issued an order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed, directing movant to respond to the order and file and serve his supporting memorandum within twenty-one days. ECF No. 244. Service of the order to show cause was attempted on movant at his last address of record, the Federal Correctional Institution in Victorville, California. The order was returned as "undeliverable, unclaimed." See Dkt. Entry dated Nov. 27, 2019.

Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of a party is fully effective. If mail directed to a pro se party is returned by the postal service, and the party fails to notify the court within sixty-three days thereafter of his current address, this court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Local Rule 183(b).

More than sixty-three days have passed since the court's November 19, 2019 order was returned by the postal service and movant has failed to inform the court of his current address. Therefore, dismissal of this case is warranted under Local Rule 183(b).

Nevertheless, the undersigned has located movant's name in the Inmate Locator website operated by the federal Bureau of Prisons.1 Movant is presently incarcerated at the U.S. Penitentiary in Pollack, Louisiana. The court will provide movant one final opportunity to proceed with the instant case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Movant shall, within 30 days after the filing date of this order, file and serve a statement showing cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice.

2. If movant seeks to continue to pursue this action, he shall file and serve his supporting memorandum simultaneously with the response to the order to show cause.

3. Alternatively, movant may withdraw his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence.

4. No further extensions of time will be granted.

5. Failure of movant to timely and fully respond to this order will result in a recommendation that his pending motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence, ECF No. 238, be denied without prejudice.

6. The Clerk of Court is directed to: (1) send movant, together with a copy of this order, a copy of the court's order to show cause filed November 19, 2019 (ECF No. 244); and (2) change movant's address of record to the following:

Alexander Sakhanskiy, BOP No. 70109-097 USP Pollock U.S. Penitentiary P.O. Box 2099 Pollack LA 71467

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. See http://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/. This Court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201; see also City of Sausalito v. O'Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1224 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts may take judicial notice of agency records that are not subject to reasonable dispute).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer