(PC) Martin v. Longardener

Opinion

JARED ANDREW MARTIN, No. 1:22-cv-01001 NODJ GSA (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ORDER v. ORDER RECOMMENDING THIS MATTER KATHERINE LONGARDENER, et al., BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER AND FOR FAILURE TO Defendants. PROSECUTE (ECF No. 10) PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS DUE FEBRUARY 29, 2024

Plaintiff, a county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights action 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. On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. ECF No. 10. Shortly thereafter, the Court’s order was returned to it. For the reasons stated below the undersigned will recommend that this matter be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and for failure to prosecute.

On December 12, 2023, an order directing Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies was returned to this Court. The returned envelope was marked “RTS, Not in Custody.” As a result, Plaintiff had sixty-three days from the return date to file a change of address form with the Court. Local Rule 183(b). Local Rule 183 requires a party who is appearing in propria persona to keep the Court informed of his or her current address. Local Rule 183(b). It also gives the litigant sixty-three days to file a change of address form with the Court once mail sent to him/her has been returned to it. Id. Under the rule, a litigant’s failure to provide a change of address to the Court within this period subjects the matter to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Id. More than sixty-three days have passed since the order in question was returned to the Court on December 12, 2023, and Plaintiff has not filed a change of address with the Court, and nor has Plaintiff filed a response to the Court’s order to show cause. Although it appears Plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, he was properly served. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of a party is fully effective. For these reasons it will be recommended that this action be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and for failure to prosecute. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to obey a court order and for failure to prosecute. See Local Rules 110, 183(b). These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations – by February 29, 2024, – Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE