Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00208/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00208-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 

BRETT ANDERSON, MICHELLE 

ANDERSON, P.J. ANDERSON, a minor, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

KRISTEN PARSKE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-208-TLN-EFB PS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

This case, in which plaintiffs are proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the 

undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 

302(c)(21). On November 7, 2014, the court issued an order directing the Clerk to send plaintiffs 

the forms necessary for the U.S. Marshal to effect service of process. That order was served on 

plaintiffs’ address of record and each copy was returned as undeliverable by the postal service. 

Service cannot be properly effected without the plaintiffs providing the needed information by 

completing the forms. It also appears that plaintiffs have failed to comply with Local Rules 

182(f) & 183(b), which requires all parties, including a party appearing in propria persona, to 

inform the court of any address change. If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the 

Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and 

opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may 

dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

Case 2:13-cv-00208-TLN-EFB Document 9 Filed 03/20/15 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 

prejudice for plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute and failure to keep the court apprised of their current 

address. See Local Rules 100, 182(f), 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, 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.” 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 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: March 20, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-00208-TLN-EFB Document 9 Filed 03/20/15 Page 2 of 2