Albert Lee Mitchell v. Bryan Birkholz ( 2024 )

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 23-10000 JWH (MRW) Date March 29, 2024 CV 24-1415 JWH (MRW) Title Mitchell v. Birkholz Present: Hon. Michael R. Wilner, U.S. Magistrate Judge Eddie Ramirez n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys for Petitioner: Attorneys for Respondent: n/a n/a Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL 1. Petitioner Mitchell is confusingly pursuing two habeas corpus actions regarding his federal incarceration. The Court recently issued an order to show cause why the second action (CV 24-1415) should not be dismissed as duplicative. Petitioner has not responded to that order, although he has made regular filings in his first action. (CV 23- 10000.) 2. The gist of both actions is a challenge to his continued custody. After a recent spate of returned mail from FCI Lompoc, the Court received a change of address notification from Plaintiff. He indicated that his new mailing address is a location in San Francisco. (CV 23-10000, Docket # 10.) However, a review of the BOP Inmate Locator website shows that Petitioner is now supervised by (and perhaps living near or at) a residential reentry management facility in Sacramento. 3. Regardless of his physical location, these recent developments suggest that Petitioner is no longer incarcerated at Lompoc. If so, his habeas actions are likely moot – he may have gotten the relief from BOP that he was requesting from this federal court. 4. The Court should not have to guess about the status of Petitioner’s location, actions, and claims. Therefore, he is ORDERED to show cause why both of his pending federal court cases should not be dismissed as moot. Petitioner’s response (not to exceed five pages) will be due by April 19. In his response, Petitioner will clearly explain what habeas relief he still believes that he is entitled to and that the Court can lawfully consider given his actual release from prison. 5. After reviewing Petitioner’s submission, the Court may solicit a response from the government or take action sua sponte regarding the cases. CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 23-10000 JWH (MRW) Date March 29, 2024 CV 24-1415 JWH (MRW) Title Mitchell v. Birkholz 6. Failure to comply with the terms of this order may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Proc. 41(b). Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2019).