(PC) McQueen v. State of California ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMORY MCQUEEN, No. 2:17-cv-0378 WBS AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,1 has filed this 18 civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to this court 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 In February and March 2022, two court orders were served on plaintiff’s address of 21 record. See ECF Nos. 25, 25. On June 8, 2022, the orders were returned to the court by the 22 postal service. 23 It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b), which requires that a 24 party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change. More than sixty-three 25 1 The last change of address filed by plaintiff in March 2020 indicates that plaintiff is no longer 26 incarcerated. See ECF No. 23. Additionally, a recent search for plaintiff via his name and former prison identification number on the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s 27 website yielded a “no records found matching that criteria” result. See generally https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/search.aspx (brackets added) (search CDCR Number field for 28 “F30195” or search Last Name field for “McQueen”) (last visited October 13, 2022). 1 || days have passed since the court orders were returned by the postal service, and plaintiff has 2 || failed to notify the court of a current address. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the current October 21, 2022, deadline for 4 | defendants to opt out of the Post-Screening ADR Project (see ECF No. 39) is VACATED. 5 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice 6 || for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b). 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 9 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 10 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 11 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 12 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 13 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 14 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 | DATED: October 13, 2022 * 16 ththienr—Chnp—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28