Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00751/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00751-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 00:0000 Cause Code Unknown

---

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

LOUIS TAMALE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-0751 WBS PAN PS

vs.

CALIFORNIA STATE, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 1, 2006, defendant Van Vong, M.D. filed a motion to

dismiss this action for lack of prosecution. On May 2, 2006, the other defendants joined in the

motion. Defendants’ motion is predicated on the fact, fully supported by the record in this

action, that several court orders served on plaintiff’s address of record have been returned by the

postal service as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, and on May 23, 2006,

defendant Vong filed a reply brief in which he represents that a copy of the motion served on

plaintiff’s address of record was returned to defendant Vong by the postal service as

undeliverable. 

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-00751-WBS-PAN Document 125 Filed 06/01/06 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

It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 83-182(f), which

requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court and all other parties of any

address change. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant Vong’s May 1, 2006 motion to dismiss, joined on May 2, 2006 by

the other defendants in this action, be granted; and

2. This action be dismissed for plaintiff's failure to keep the court apprised of his

current address. See Local Rules 83-182(f) and 11-110.

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 twenty

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

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

Findings and Recommendations.” 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: May 31, 2006.

12

tama0751.33a

Case 2:02-cv-00751-WBS-PAN Document 125 Filed 06/01/06 Page 2 of 2