Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02052/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02052-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Board Of Prison Term
Defendant
Allen W. Hoze
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

ALLEN W. HOZE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2052 LKK DAD P

vs.

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On October 11, 2005, plaintiff, a county jail inmate, submitted a letter in which he

asks the court to “set the BPT straight for once and for all” with regard to hearsay evidence. The

Clerk of the Court construed the letter as a civil rights complaint and opened this case. The case

opening documents sent to plaintiff at his address of record were returned by the postal service as

undeliverable. The mail was marked “Not in custody.” No updated address has been provided.

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 of any address change.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that 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.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02052-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 10/25/05 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

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 thirty

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

objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 25, 2005.

DAD:13:bb

hoze2052.33a

Case 2:05-cv-02052-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 10/25/05 Page 2 of 2