Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00599/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00599-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUMPTER PORTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAQUIN RIVERA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:24-cv-0599 JLT SAB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND 

DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 

CLOSE THIS CASE

(Doc. 11)

Sumpter Porter seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights while 

incarcerated at Norther Kern State Prison. (See generally Doc. 1.) The assigned magistrate judge 

screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and found 

Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 16 at 2-5.) The Court directed Plaintiff to file a

third amended complaint or notify the Court if he wished to dismiss the action. (Id. at 6.) After 

Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s order, the magistrate judge directed Plaintiff to show cause 

why the action should not be dismissed. (Doc. 17.) 

After Plaintiff also failed to respond to the order to show cause, the magistrate judge 

issued Findings and Recommendations, reiterating the findings in the Screening Order and 

recommending dismissal. (Doc. 18 at 2; see also id. at 3-6.) The magistrate judge also found 

terminating sanctions were appropriate for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders

and failure to prosecute, after considering the factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in Henderson 

Case 1:24-cv-00599-JLT-SAB Document 19 Filed 12/30/24 Page 1 of 3
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

v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). (Id. at 6-8.) Therefore, the magistrate judge 

recommended dismissal “for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court orders, failure to prosecute, 

and failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.” (Id. at 9.)

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff at the address on record 

and notified him that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 18 at 9.) However, the U.S. 

Postal Service returned the Findings and Recommendations as “Undeliverable, Paroled.” To date, 

Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address. Nevertheless, service upon Plaintiff is 

deemed fully effective. See Local Rule 182(f) (“Each ... pro se party is under a continuing duty to 

notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of address or telephone number of the attorney 

or the pro se party. Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior address of the attorney 

or pro se party shall be fully effective.”)

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 

are supported by the record and proper analysis. In addition, more than 63 days have passed since 

the Postal Service first returned the Court’s mail as undeliverable, and Plaintiff failed to comply 

with the Local Rules requiring him to keep the Court apprised of a proper mailing address. See 

Local Rule 183(b). The reasoning set forth by the magistrate judge addressing the Henderson

factors also supports dismissal for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules. See Carey 

v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (addressing the same factors and affirming the 

district court’s dismissal after mail to the plaintiff was returned as undeliverable and he did not 

provide a proper address as required by the court’s local rules). Therefore, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on October 29, 2024 (Doc. 6) are 

ADOPTED in full. 

2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to state a 

cognizable claim, failure to prosecute, failure to obey the Court’s orders, and 

failure to comply with the Local Rules.

///

///

Case 1:24-cv-00599-JLT-SAB Document 19 Filed 12/30/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-00599-JLT-SAB Document 19 Filed 12/30/24 Page 3 of 3