Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00197/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00197-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
INS
Defendant
Ildefonso Soto-Servin
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ILDEFONSO SOTO-SERVIN,

Petitioner,

v.

I.N.S.,

Respondent.

CIV. S-05-0197 MCE PAN PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

-o0oOn June 30, 2005, this court directed petitioner to serve

process upon respondent and to file proof of such service by July

20, 2005. The Clerk of Court has twice attempted–on June 30 and

July 6, 2005–to serve that order upon petitioner by mailing it to

the address he provided the court; both times the mail was

returned as undeliverable without a forwarding address. 

E. D. Cal. L. R. 83-183(b) provides:

Address Changes. A party, appearing in propria persona

shall keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his

or her current address. If mail directed to a plaintiff in

propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal

Case 2:05-cv-00197-MCE -PAN Document 6 Filed 11/10/05 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

Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and

opposing parties within sixty (60) days thereafter of a

current address, the Court may dismiss the action without

prejudice for failure to prosecute.

More than sixty days have passed since the U.S. Postal

Service returned the Clerk’s most recent attempted service of the

court’s order. Petitioner has failed to notify the court of his

current address. Accordingly, I recommend this action be

dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. E. D. Cal.

L. R. 83-183(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and 83. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr., the United States District

Judge assigned to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Written

objections may be filed within ten days after being served with

these findings and recommendations. The document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: November 9, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00197-MCE -PAN Document 6 Filed 11/10/05 Page 2 of 2