Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00140/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00140-9/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

SHANE MYRON REYES,

Plaintiff,

v.

LVN BELL, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0140 KJM KJN P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On September 11, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, based on plaintiff’s failure to keep the court apprised of his 

address as required by the June 15, 2015 order. (ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff has not opposed the 

motion. As set forth below, defendants’ motion should be granted. 

Defendants state that plaintiff’s copy of their amended answer was returned by the postal 

service marked “Refused Unable to Forward.” (ECF No. 47.) Defendants checked with the 

California Correctional Institute (“CCC”) litigation coordinator, who informed them that plaintiff 

paroled on June 11, 2015, to parole unit Region 4, San Diego #1. On September 9, 2015, 

defendants contacted the parole unit, and were informed by Agent Andre Kemp that plaintiff’s 

parole was suspended on September 1, 2015, because he had absconded parole and his 

whereabouts were unknown. (ECF No. 47 at 2.) 

////

Case 2:15-cv-00140-KJM-KJN Document 51 Filed 12/15/15 Page 1 of 3
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

On October 22, 2015, plaintiff filed a request for extension of time. (ECF No. 50.) 

Plaintiff failed to provide his current mailing address in his request for extension, and the inmate 

locators for the San Diego County Jail and the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation did not reflect that plaintiff was in custody. (ECF No. 50 at 2.) Thus, the order 

granting plaintiff an extension of time was served on plaintiff at the George Bailey Detention 

Facility in San Diego, which was the return address on plaintiff’s envelope received on October 

22, 2015. (ECF No. 50.) On October 28, 2015, copies of the motion to dismiss and the October 

27, 2015 order were re-served on plaintiff at the George Bailey address. Each was returned to the 

court as undeliverable, unable to forward.

On June 12, 2015, the parties were informed that:

Each party proceeding without counsel shall keep the court 

informed of a current address at all times while the action is 

pending. Any change of address must be reported promptly to the 

court in a separate document captioned for this case and entitled 

“Notice of Change of Address.” A notice of change of address 

must be properly served on other parties. Service of documents at 

the address of record for a party is fully effective. See L.R. 182(f). 

A party’s failure to inform the court of a change of address may 

result in the imposition of sanctions including dismissal of the 

action.

(ECF No. 37 at 4-5.) Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may 

be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 

inherent power of the Court.” In the June 12, 2015 order, plaintiff was also advised that failure to 

comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

Finally, in the October 27, 2015 order granting plaintiff an extension of time, plaintiff was 

reminded of his obligation to keep the court apprised of his current address, and was informed 

that failure to oppose the motion would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed 

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 50 at 2.) Although it 

appears from the record 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 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 2:15-cv-00140-KJM-KJN Document 51 Filed 12/15/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Accordingly, plaintiff’s failure to oppose should be deemed a waiver of opposition to the 

granting of the motion. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ September 11, 2015 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 47) be granted; and

2. This action be dismissed. 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)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 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: December 14, 2015

/reye0140.mtd.41b

Case 2:15-cv-00140-KJM-KJN Document 51 Filed 12/15/15 Page 3 of 3