(PC) Parker v. Sacramento

Opinion

AKIKA PARKER, No. 2:24-cv-01195-EFB (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants. By order filed February 11, 2025, the court ordered plaintiff to file a completed in forma pauperis application and trust account statement or an amended complaint clarifying that plaintiff is not currently detained as a result of being accused of, convicted of, or sentenced for a criminal offense. ECF No. 6. The thirty-day period provided by the court has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order. Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of a current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district judge to this action. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(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)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The 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. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (th Cir. 1991). Dated: April 28, 2025 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1]