Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01100/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01100-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL S. DAVIS,

Plaintiff, No. 2:11-cv-1100 KJN P

vs.

C. CARLTON, et al., ORDER and

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner seeking in forma pauperis status in this civil

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 23, 2011, this court issued an order

directing plaintiff to file a new application to proceed in forma pauperis, on a form used in nonprisoner cases, which was attached to the court’s order. (Dkt. No. 5.) That order was served on

plaintiff’s address of record but returned by the postal service as “undeliverable.” It appears that

plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b), which requires that a party appearing in

propria persona inform the court of any address change. More than thirty have passed since the

attempted service of the court’s order, and plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of a current

address. The court will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

////

////

Case 2:11-cv-01100-TLN-KJN Document 6 Filed 07/26/11 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court 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, plaintiff may file written

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. 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. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: July 25, 2011

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

davi1100.33a

Case 2:11-cv-01100-TLN-KJN Document 6 Filed 07/26/11 Page 2 of 2