(HC) Bingham v. Brewer, No. 2:2022cv02235 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 05/31/2023 DIRECTING the Clerk to randomly assign a district judge to this action. District Judge Troy L. Nunley and Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan assigned f or all further proceedings. It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed and all pending motions be denied as moot. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. New Case Number: 2:22-cv-2235 TLN EFB (HC). (Spichka, K.)

Download PDF
(HC) Bingham v. Brewer Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PHILLIP ANTHONY BINGHAM, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:22-cv-02235-EFB (HC) v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DAVID BREWER, 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel in this petition for writ of 17 18 habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On March 7, 2022, the postal service returned 19 mail sent to petitioner from the court with a notation that petitioner was “no longer” at FCI- 20 Herlong. A party appearing without counsel must keep the court and all parties apprised of his 21 22 current address. L.R. 183(b). If mail directed to a petitioner is returned by the postal service and 23 petitioner fails to notify the court and opposing parties within 63 days thereafter of his current 24 address, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Id. More 25 than 63 days have passed since the postal service returned the mail and petitioner has not notified 26 the court of his current address. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed and all pending motions be denied as moot. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 110, 183(b). 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 7 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 8 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 9 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 10 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 11 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 13 Dated: May 31, 2023. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.