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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ALFREDOS KAULAVICIUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARRASCO CELERINO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5544RJB

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

Noted for October 28, 2005

This matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§

636(b)(1)(A) and 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and MJR 4. The matter is

before the court because mail sent to plaintiff by the court clerk has been returned and it appears plaintiff

may have been deported. After reviewing the record, it is recommended that the Court dismiss plaintiff’s

causes of action.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 9, 2005, the Court Clerk received plaintiff’s proposed civil rights complaint. Due to

certain deficiencies in his pleadings, the Court Clerk wrote to plaintiff explaining these deficiencies and

advising plaintiff that he had until September 19, 2005 to correct his mistakes. The letter was returned to

the Clerk’s office as undeliverable.

A review of the record shows that plaintiff was in the custody of Immigration and Customs

Enforcement agency awaiting deportation. The Federal Public Defender represented plaintiff in a related

Case 3:05-cv-05544-RJB Document 4 Filed 09/29/05 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

27

28

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 2

matter (C05-883MJP) and wrote plaintiff a letter explaining their limited representation. It appears

plaintiff has been deported, as he was removed from the immigration detention center on August 22, 2005. 

Plaintiff has not contacted the court or clerk’s office since the initial filing on August 9, 2005. 

DISCUSSION

It is the pro se plaintiff's responsibility to keep the clerk informed of his or her current address to

ensure timely notification of court action. Local Rule CR 41(b)(2) states:

A party proceeding pro se shall keep the court and opposing parties advised as to his

current address. If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff by the clerk is returned by the Post

Office, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the court and opposing parties within 60 days

thereafter of his current address, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice for

failure to prosecute.

Here, by the time this recommendation is considered by the Court, more than 60 days since

plaintiff’s last correspondence was received by the Court Clerk notifying him that plaintiff’s address was

invalid. In conjunction with proceedings and pleadings in C05-883MJP, the court should find that plaintiff

may have been deported and is no longer pursuing this matter. The court is unaware of plaintiff’s current

place of residence.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing discussion, the Court should dismiss this matter without prejudice for

failure to prosecute pursuant to Local Rule CR 41. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the

Federal rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file written

objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for

purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule

72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on October 28, 2005, as noted in the caption. 

DATED this 29th day of September, 2005.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05544-RJB Document 4 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 2