Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01024/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01024-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY ALBERT BAGGETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF FRESNO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:24-cv-01024-KES-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Doc. 11

Plaintiff Anthony Albert Baggett is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On August 6, 2024, plaintiff initiated this action in the Sacramento Division of the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Docs. 1, 2. The case was transferred 

to the Fresno Division on August 28, 2024, and new case documents were issued by the Fresno 

Division the same date. Docs. 6, 7. On August 29, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued an 

order striking plaintiff’s first amended complaint for lack of signature and directing plaintiff to 

file a signed first amended complaint within thirty days. Doc. 8. The assigned magistrate judge

also issued an order granting plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 9. On 

September 11, 2024, the Court’s August 29, 2024 orders directing Plaintiff to file a signed first 

amended complaint and granting Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis were returned 

as “Undeliverable, Return to Sender, Not at Facility.” On September 13, 2024, the Fresno 

Case 1:24-cv-01024-KES-BAM Document 12 Filed 01/02/25 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

Division new case documents were returned as “Undeliverable, Not at Facility.” More than sixtythree days passed, and plaintiff did not file a notice of change of address or otherwise 

communicate with the Court as required by Local Rule 183(b).

Accordingly, on December 2, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending dismissal of this action, without prejudice, for failure to 

prosecute. Doc. 11. The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained 

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service. Id. at 3. 

Plaintiff did not file any objections, and the deadline to do so has passed. To date, plaintiff has 

not otherwise communicated with the Court or updated his address.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of 

the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the findings and 

recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 2, 2024, Doc. 11, are adopted in 

full;

2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 31, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01024-KES-BAM Document 12 Filed 01/02/25 Page 2 of 2