Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alex Felix Yanez Dayyan, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:25-cv-00818-SAB-HC, naming the Warden of Federal of Prisons as respondent. On November 4, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone issued a findings and recommendation in the case.
On February 2, 2026, mail sent to the petitioner was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable, with a notation that he was 'No Longer at this Address.' The petitioner did not notify the court of his current address, and more than thirty days had passed by the time the findings and recommendation was filed on November 4, 2026.
The Eastern District of California's local rules place the burden on parties to keep the court apprised of their current address at all times. Under Local Rule 183(b), if mail directed to a pro se petitioner is returned as undeliverable and the petitioner fails to provide a current address within thirty days, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Boone explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a district court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to comply with local rules, or failure to comply with court orders. He cited Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991), and Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 403 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005), for the principle that courts may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute.
Applying those principles, the court noted that it is the petitioner's responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times, and that absent notice of a change of address, service at the prior address is fully effective. Because the February 2, 2026 mail was returned as undeliverable and the petitioner did not notify the court of a current address within thirty days, the court concluded that dismissal for failure to prosecute was warranted under Local Rule 183(b).
The document contains two distinct dispositions. The court recommended that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute — a recommendation, not a final order, submitted to the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the local rules. Separately, the court directed the Clerk of Court to randomly assign a district judge to the case, an immediately effective order. The petitioner was given fourteen days after service to file written objections limited to fifteen pages including exhibits, with a warning that failure to object may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Key Takeaways
- A pro se federal prisoner who fails to keep the court informed of a current address risks dismissal of a habeas petition for failure to prosecute.
- Under the Eastern District of California's Local Rule 183(b), the court may dismiss without prejudice if mail to a pro se petitioner is returned as undeliverable and no current address is provided within thirty days.
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows courts to dismiss cases sua sponte for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with rules and court orders.
- The document pairs a recommendation to dismiss without prejudice, which awaits district judge review, with an immediately effective order directing the Clerk to randomly assign a district judge.
- Parties have fourteen days to object to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, and failing to object may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Why It Matters
This recommendation illustrates how courts enforce local address-update rules against incarcerated pro se litigants, for whom mail is often the only reliable channel of communication with the court. A dismissal for failure to prosecute can end a habeas case without any review of its merits, making compliance with basic procedural obligations critical for prisoners seeking relief.
The document also reflects the standard division of labor in the federal courts: a magistrate judge screens the petition and recommends dismissal, while the final decision rests with a district judge who reviews any objections. Because the recommended dismissal is without prejudice, the petitioner may pursue his claims again if he reestablishes contact with the court.