Patton v. Price
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:23-cv-00012
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Patton v. Price, Judge Corley dismissed Billy Patton’s habeas case without prejudice because he failed to provide a current address or contact the court.
Billy Patton’s federal habeas case was dismissed without prejudice because he did not maintain a current mailing address or respond to the court.
What happened
In Patton v. Price, Billy Patton, a prisoner representing himself, filed a petition challenging his custody under federal habeas law. Court mail sent to the address he provided was returned as undeliverable, and a social worker reported that he had been released and was not under supervision.
The court ordered Patton to provide a valid mailing address and explain why the case should not be dismissed. He did not respond, provide a new address, or contact the court. The court also noted that he had not opposed the respondent’s motion to dismiss.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley dismissed the case without prejudice under the court’s local address rule and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal for failure to follow a court order or move a case forward. The dismissal allows refiling in a new case if Patton provides and maintains a correct address.
The detailed version
- Patton v. Price · No. 3:23-cv-00012
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Aug. 7, 2024
Background
Billy Patton, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, filed a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court had mailed scheduling orders to the address and prisoner number Patton provided. The postal service returned both orders as undeliverable. The respondent’s attorney also submitted a declaration stating that a social worker at Atascadero State Hospital reported that Patton had been released from custody several weeks earlier and was not on parole or supervised release.
Patton did not oppose the respondent’s motion to dismiss and had not contacted the court for more than eight months. At the outset of the case, the court had instructed him to keep the court informed of any address change and had warned that failing to do so could result in dismissal.
Order to Show Cause
The court issued an order requiring Patton, within 28 days, to provide a current valid mailing address and any identification number needed to receive mail, and to explain why the case should not be dismissed under Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 3-11 or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The order to show cause was also returned as undeliverable. Patton still did not provide a current address or contact the court.
The court noted that Civil Local Rule 3-11 requires a self-represented party whose address changes during a case to promptly file and serve a notice of the new address. Under that rule, the court may dismiss without prejudice when court mail is returned as undeliverable and the party does not provide a current address within 60 days. Rule 41(b) separately permits involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with court rules or orders, when the failure is unreasonable.
Ruling
The court found that Patton had not provided his current mailing address, despite being given time and an opportunity to correct the problem. It concluded that nearly five months had passed since his mail was first returned and that his failure to comply and lack of contact provided grounds for dismissal under both Civil Local Rule 3-11(b) and Rule 41(b).
The case was dismissed without prejudice to refiling in a new case in which Patton provides and maintains his correct address. The clerk was ordered to enter judgment and close the file. The court did not decide the underlying habeas claim.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.