Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00201/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00201-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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 

SADAT LATOUR JOHNSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

KATE POWELL SERGERSTROM, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. 2:17-cv-0201 GGH P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 A recent court order was served on petitioner’s address of record and returned by the 

postal service. It appears that petitioner has failed to comply with Local Rule 182(f), which 

requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change. More 

than sixty-three days have passed since the court order was returned by the postal service and 

petitioner has failed to notify the Court of a current address. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a 

district judge to this action. 

 Additionally, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 

prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 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, any party may file written 

Case 2:17-cv-00201-JAM-GGH Document 8 Filed 03/13/17 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

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within 

fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 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). 

Dated: March 10, 2017 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

/kly 

john0201.133a 

Case 2:17-cv-00201-JAM-GGH Document 8 Filed 03/13/17 Page 2 of 2