(HC) Christensen v. Judge in the State of California

E.D. California

(HC) Christensen v. Judge in the State of California

DecidedMarch 21, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-02846

StatusUnknown

This text of (HC) Christensen v. Judge in the State of California ((HC) Christensen v. Judge in the State of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(HC) Christensen v. Judge in the State of California, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHAD ANDRE CHRISTENSEN, No. 2:23-CV-02846-DJC-DB 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JUDGE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondent. 16

17 A recent court order was served on petitioner’s address of record and returned by the 18 postal service. It appears that petitioner has failed to comply with Local Rule 182(f), which 19 requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change. More 20 than seventy-three days have passed since the court order was returned by the postal service and 21 petitioner has failed to notify the Court of a current address. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for without 23 prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b). 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 27 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 28 1 | Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within 2 | fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections 3 | within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 4 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 | Dated: March 20, 2024

g ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 DB:16 12 B DB/DB/Prisoner Inbox/Prisoner.Habeas/Routine/Chris.02846.133a

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHAD ANDRE CHRISTENSEN, No. 2:23-CV-02846-DJC-DB 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JUDGE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondent. 16

17 A recent court order was served on petitioner’s address of record and returned by the 18 postal service. It appears that petitioner has failed to comply with Local Rule 182(f), which 19 requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change. More 20 than seventy-three days have passed since the court order was returned by the postal service and 21 petitioner has failed to notify the Court of a current address. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for without 23 prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b). 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 27 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 28 1 | Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within 2 | fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections 3 | within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 4 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 | Dated: March 20, 2024

g ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 DB:16 12 B DB/DB/Prisoner Inbox/Prisoner.Habeas/Routine/Chris.02846.133a

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(HC) Christensen v. Judge in the State of California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-christensen-v-judge-in-the-state-of-california-caed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack