Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kumdak v. Quinn

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

January 29, 2014

DENG M. KUMDAK, Petitioner,
v.
KENNETH QUINN, Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MARY ALICE THEILER, Chief Magistrate Judge.

This is a federal habeas action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254. On April 24, 2008, the undersigned issued an Order staying this action pending resolution of petitioner's personal restraint proceedings in the Washington courts. (Dkt. 27.) The parties were specifically directed in that Order to notify the Court within thirty days of the date on which petitioner's personal restraint proceedings concluded in the state courts. ( See id. ) Having heard nothing from the parties for an extended period of time, this Court undertook an independent review of the state court dockets relating to petitioner's personal restraint proceedings. The Court determined from its review of the state court dockets that petitioner's personal restraint proceedings had concluded in late 2009 at approximately the same time petitioner likely would have completed the sentence imposed for the conviction he sought to challenge in this action.

Because these factors, taken together, suggested that petitioner had likely abandoned this action, this Court, on October 10, 2013, issued an Order directing petitioner to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. 32) On October 22, 2013, the copy of the Order mailed to petitioner at his address of record, the Monroe Correctional Complex, was returned as undeliverable with a notation indicating that the addressee was unknown and that the correspondence could not be forwarded. (Dkt. 33.) To date, petitioner has not provided the Court with a new address.

Because over sixty days have passed since mail directed to petitioner at his address of record was returned by the post office, and because petitioner has not notified the Court of his current address, this action should be DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute pursuant to LCR 41(b)(2). A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.