Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00575/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00575-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANDREW JAMES COLEMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ALEXANDER GOFF, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-0575 TLN SCR P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, a county inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§1983. On screening the complaint, the court found plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims 

for relief under §1983. The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff was 

given sixty days from July 11, 2024, the date of service of the order, to file a first amended 

complaint. (June 14, 2024 Order, ECF No. 11; Docket Entry dated July 11, 2024.) 

Sixty days have passed and plaintiff has not filed a first amended complaint or otherwise 

responded to the court’s June 14 order. Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of 

the June 14 order was returned by the Postal Service, plaintiff 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 the party is fully effective. 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:24-cv-00575-TLN-SCR Document 14 Filed 10/02/24 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed for 

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and to comply with the court’s June 14 order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41; E.D. Cal. R. 110. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one 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 result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: October 2, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-00575-TLN-SCR Document 14 Filed 10/02/24 Page 2 of 2