Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00406/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00406-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A. Coronado
Defendant
Tony Christopher Gonzales
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONY CHRISTOPHER GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. CORONADO,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-0406 JLT BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 

ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, AND 

DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 

CLOSE THIS CASE

(Doc. 13)

Tony Christopher Gonzales is a state prisoner and seeks to hold A. Coronado, a 

correctional counselor, liable for violations of Plaintiff’s civil rights while incarcerated at Wasco 

State Prison. (See generally Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 11 at 

3-6.) The Court provided the relevant pleading standards and ordered Plaintiff to file any 

amended complaint within 30 days. (Id. at 7.) However, U.S. Postal Service returned the order 

as “Undeliverable, Unable to Forward” on September 27, 2024. Plaintiff did not file an amended 

complaint, file a notice of change of address, or otherwise communicate with the Court.

The magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, reiterating the findings in 

the Screening Order that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 13 at 3-6.) The 

magistrate judge also found Plaintiff failed to prosecute this case, comply with the Court’s order, 

or comply with the Local Rules requiring him to keep the Court informed of his current address. 

Case 1:24-cv-00406-JLT-BAM Document 14 Filed 01/16/25 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

(Id. at 6-8.) After considering the factors identified in Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th 

Cir. 1986), the magistrate judge found terminating sanctions are appropriate and recommended 

dismissal with prejudice. (Id. at 8-9.)

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

record and notified him that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 13 at 9.) The U.S. 

Postal Service also returned the Findings and Recommendations on January 6, 2025, marked 

“Undeliverable, OTC, Paroled.” 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. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 26, 2024 (Doc. 13) are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2025 

Case 1:24-cv-00406-JLT-BAM Document 14 Filed 01/16/25 Page 2 of 2