(PC) Galloway v. Pfieffer

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 22, 2024
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00737
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRY DONELL GALLOWAY, No. 1:22-cv-00737 JLT GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. ORDER RECOMMENDING MATTER BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE 14 CHRISTIAN PFIEFFER, et al., NOTICE OF CURRENT ADDRESS WITH COURT 15 Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS DUE IN 16 FOURTEEN DAYS 17 18 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner1 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this 19 civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 For the reasons stated below, the undersigned will recommend that this matter be 22 dismissed for failure to file a current address with the Court. Plaintiff will have fourteen days 23 from the date of this order to file objections to it. 24 I. RELEVANT FACTS 25 On July 29, 2024, Plaintiff was ordered to file a notice of change of address with the 26

27 1 On September 22, 2023, a notice of change of address filed by Plaintiff was docketed. ECF No. 11. In it, the new address Plaintiff provided appears to indicate that he is no longer incarcerated. 28 See id. 1 Court. ECF No. 12. The order was issued in an effort to verify Plaintiff’s current address given 2 the extended period of time that had passed since the matter had been filed. Id. 3 On August 6, 2024, the Court’s order was returned to it marked “Undeliverable, No Mail 4 Receptacle.” Since then, more than sixty-three days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed a 5 notice of change of address with the Court. See, e.g., Local Rule 183(b). 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 Although the order that directed Plaintiff to file a notice of current address was returned, 8 he was properly served. It is a plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the Court apprised of his current 9 address at all times. See Local Rule 183(b). Moreover, pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of 10 documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. For these reasons, it will be 11 recommended that this matter be dismissed. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED without 13 prejudice for failure to file a notice of current address with the Court. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 16 after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 17 with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 18 and Recommendations,” and it shall not exceed fifteen pages. 19 The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the objections. To the extent that a party 20 wishes to refer to any exhibit, when possible, the party must reference the exhibit in the record by 21 its CM/ECF document and page number or reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed 22 in excess of the fifteen-page limit may be disregarded by the District Judge when conducting the 23 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C) review of the findings and recommendations. A party’s failure to file 24 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. See 25 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 26 Cir. 1991). 27 28 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2

3 Dated: October 21, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28