(PC) Baggett v. Division of Adult Parole Corrections and Rehabilitation

Opinion

ANTHONY ALBERT BAGGETT, No. 1:24-cv-00978 GSA (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. ORDER RECOMMENDING MATTER BE DIVISION OF ADULT PAROLE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE CORRECTIONS AND NOTICE OF CURRENT ADDRESS WITH Defendant. PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS

Plaintiff, an individual who appears to be a former civil detainee, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this matter. He has filed it seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned will recommend that this matter be dismissed for failure to file a current address with the Court. Plaintiff will have fourteen days from the date of this order to file objections to it. I. RELEVANT FACTS On August 5, 2024, Plaintiff’s complaint was docketed in Sacramento and new case documents along with a consent form were sent to him.1 See ECF Nos. 1, 3-4 (complaint; new case / consent documents; intradistrict transfer order, respectively). On August 12, 2024, the new case / consent documents that had been sent to Plaintiff were returned to the Court marked “Undeliverable, Not at this Facility.” Since then, more than sixty-three days have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address with the Court. See, e.g., Local Rule 183(b). Although Plaintiff’s copy of the new case documents and consent order were returned, he was properly served. It is a plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. See Local Rule 183(b). Moreover, pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. For these reasons, it will be recommended that this matter be dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a District Judge to this matter. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to file a notice of current address with the Court. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and it shall not exceed fifteen pages. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the objections. To the extent that a party wishes to refer to any exhibit, when possible, the party must reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number or reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen-page limit may be disregarded by the District Judge when conducting the 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C) review of the findings and recommendations. A party’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. See

1 A couple of weeks later, the matter was transferred to this division. ECF No. 4. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE