Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00024/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00024-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

MOODY WOODROW TANKSLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-0024-TLN-KJN PS

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

On March 24, 2016, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 

dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 9.) The court noted that 

plaintiff’s complaint was largely unintelligible and failed to state a claim on which relief may be 

granted. (Id.) Nevertheless, in light of plaintiff’s pro se status, and because it was at least 

conceivable that plaintiff could allege additional facts to potentially state a claim, the court 

granted plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint. (Id.) Plaintiff was directed to file any 

amended complaint within 28 days, and was cautioned that failure to timely file an amended 

complaint could result in dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(b). (Id.)

Although the deadline to file an amended complaint has now passed, no amended 

complaint was filed. Furthermore, the court’s records indicate that the court’s previous order was 

returned as undeliverable, and that plaintiff has not notified the court of a change of address. The 

Case 2:16-cv-00024-TLN-KJN Document 10 Filed 04/29/16 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

court notes that plaintiff frequently files actions in this district, and then fails to update the court 

regarding his new address(es), resulting in orders being returned to the court. See, e.g., Tanksley 

v. U.C. Davis Hospital, 2:13-cv-1765-WBS-KJN; Tanksley v. Sacramento County, et al., 2:15-

cv-672-MCE-KJN; Tanksley v. Sacramento County, et al., 2:15-cv-692-KJM-KJN. Therefore, it 

appears that plaintiff has again abandoned prosecution of this action. Nevertheless, because it at 

least seems that plaintiff may be experiencing periods of homelessness, which may be the cause 

of his address changes, the court recommends that dismissal be without prejudice. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The action be dismissed without prejudice.

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

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 (14) 

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 reply to the objections 

shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) 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. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 

Dated: April 29, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-00024-TLN-KJN Document 10 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 2