Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03065/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03065-11/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 

STACY PAUL HERNANDEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WEST SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPT., 

et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-3065 AC P 

ORDER and 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner who commenced this action pro se and in forma 

pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to his First Amended Complaint (FAC), ECF 

No. 11, plaintiff makes claims against defendants West Sacramento Police Department and 

Sacramento City Police Department, and law enforcement officers Wringer, Kinney, Watson, 

Herrera, Duggins and Azevedo. All defendants answered the FAC. This action is referred to the 

undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Local Rule 

302(c), and Local General Order No. 262. 

 On September 26, 2014, defendants Azevedo and City of Sacramento filed a motion for 

summary judgment. ECF No. 74. Plaintiff did not respond. On January 30, 2015, this court 

issued an order directing plaintiff to file and serve, within thirty days, an opposition to the motion 

for summary judgment or a statement of non-opposition thereto. ECF No. 77. That order was 

Case 2:12-cv-03065-MCE-AC Document 78 Filed 02/27/15 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

served on plaintiff at his last noticed address of record, the Federal Correctional Complex in 

Forrest City, Arkansas. See ECF No. 42 (Notice of Change of Address), and docket entry 

following ECF No. 77 (court’s order served by mail on plaintiff at the Federal Correctional 

Complex). On February 18, 2015, the order was returned because “not deliverable.” The Inmate 

Locator website operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons1 indicates that plaintiff was released 

from federal custody on September 30, 2014.

 It is plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court appraised of his current address at all times. 

See Local Rule 182(f) (service of documents at a party’s address of record is fully effective). 

It is reasonable to infer that plaintiff has abandoned this action. The undersigned will therefore 

recommend that this action be dismissed. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The Clerk of Court is directly to randomly assign a district judge to this action. 

 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

 1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this 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 

//// 

//// 

/// 

 

1

 See http://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/. This Court may take judicial notice of facts that are 

capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. 

Fed. R. Evid. 201; see also City of Sausalito v. O’Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1224 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004) 

(courts may take judicial notice of governmental agency records that are not subject to reasonable 

dispute). 

Case 2:12-cv-03065-MCE-AC Document 78 Filed 02/27/15 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

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; February 26, 2015 

Case 2:12-cv-03065-MCE-AC Document 78 Filed 02/27/15 Page 3 of 3