Minichino v. La Rosa

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARIE MINICHINO, Case No. 24-cv-04048-LJC

8 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 v. FOR DISMISSAL

10 LEO LA ROSA, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 5 Defendants. 11

12 The undersigned magistrate judge previously granted pro se Plaintiff Marie Minichino’s 13 application to proceed in forma pauperis, reviewed the sufficiency of Minichino’s Complaint 14 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and ordered Minichino to show cause why her Complaint should 15 not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 5. Minichino’s response was 16 due August 22, 2024. Id. at 1, 7. That deadline has passed, and no response has been filed. 17 Although the copy of the Order to Show Cause that the Clerk mailed to Minichino was returned 18 with an indication that she no longer lived at the address provided, ECF No. 8,1 a pro se plaintiff is 19 responsible for providing Court with an accurate and current mailing address. Civ. L.R. 3-11; 20 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1988). The Clerk also sent the Order to Show 21 Cause to Minichino by email and spoke to her by telephone, and Minichino indicated that she 22 would file an amended complaint before the response deadline stated in the Order to Show Cause, 23 which she failed to do. See Docket Remark (Aug. 15, 2024). 24 The undersigned therefore recommends that Minichino’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be 25 DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for the reasons stated in the Order to Show 26 Cause, without leave to amend in this Court but without prejudice to any claim that Minichino 27 1 might bring in a court of competent jurisdiction. 2 Because not all parties have appeared and consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate 3 || judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), this case will be reassigned to a district judge for all further 4 || proceedings, including action on the recommendation of this Report. Minichino may file an 5 objection to this recommendation no later than September 16, 2024. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) 6 (allowing objections fourteen days after service of a report and recommendation); Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 6(d) (extending time after service by mail). 8 In addition to serving this Report by mail, the Clerk is directed to send a copy of this 9 Report to Minichino by email. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: August 28, 2024

E13 on, | hari — YA J. CISNEROS ited States Magistrate Judge

2 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28