(PC) Parker v. Sacramento

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AKIKA PARKER, No. 2:24-cv-01195-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed February 11, 2025, the court ordered plaintiff to file a completed in forma 18 pauperis application and trust account statement or an amended complaint clarifying that plaintiff 19 is not currently detained as a result of being accused of, convicted of, or sentenced for a criminal 20 offense. ECF No. 6. The thirty-day period provided by the court has now expired, and plaintiff 21 has not responded to the court’s order. 22 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff 23 was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of a current 24 address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of 25 the party is fully effective. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a 27 district judge to this action. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed 28 without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). ] These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 3 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 4 || with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 5 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 6 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 7 | (th Cir. 1991). | Dated: April 28, 2025 9 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28