Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01422/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01422-3/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

Public records of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation on January 29, 2007, showed plaintiff

1

in custody at Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla, California.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNA MARIE RIVERS, 1:06-CV-01422-OWW-SMS-P

Plaintiff,

vs. ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO BE 

SERVED AT DIFFERENT ADDRESS (Doc. 13)

OFFICER HULKABEE, et al.,

 

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

1983. On January 24, 2007, plaintiff submitted a notice of change of address to the Court. In the notice,

plaintiff requested that the Court change her address to a private street address, despite the fact that

plaintiff remains in custody at a correctional facility.1

There is no Federal Rule of Civil Procedure or Local Rule concerning the service of Court and

other legal documentation at an address other than a pro se litigant’s actual address. Local Rule 7-131,

Local Rule 83-182(d), and Local Rule 83-183(b) require pro se litigants to inform the Court of their

addresses and to keep the Court informed of any change in their addresses. There is no authority for the

proposition that a pro se litigant can simply request the Court to serve her at a different address. 

There may be special circumstances in which the Court could serve a pro se litigant at a separate

address. However, hundreds of pro se litigants who currently have cases pending before this Court are

Case 1:06-cv-01422-LJO -SMS Document 14 Filed 01/31/07 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

similarly situated as plaintiff. Unexpected or frequent transfer alone is insufficient to warrant service

at a location otherthan the pro se litigant’s place of incarceration. Moreover, service at a location other

than plaintiff’s place of incarceration can pose significant problems with ensuring that plaintiff receives

all court documentation, meets court deadlines, and prepares and signs all of her own legal

documentation as a party proceeding in pro se.

Plaintiff is cautioned that pro se litigants are required to notify the Clerk and all other parties of

any change of address, and absent such notice, service of documents at the prior address of the party

shall be fully effective. See Local Rule 83-182(d). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request to be served at a private address

outside her place of incarceration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01422-LJO -SMS Document 14 Filed 01/31/07 Page 2 of 2