(PS) DeCheri Hafer v. Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DECHERI HAFER, No. 2:22-cv-01370-KJM-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND 15 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, ET AL., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff filed this action in the Central District of California on July 22, 2022. (ECF No. 19 1.) On August 2, 2022, the matter was transferred to this court. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff filed a First 20 Amended Complaint (FAC) and request for temporary restraining order on November 16, 2022. 21 (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff also requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (See ECF Nos. 3, 9.) 22 On January 10, 2023, the court granted plaintiff’s IFP request and dismissed the complaint 23 with leave to amend for failure to state a discernable claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil 24 Procedure 8(a). (ECF No. 11.) The court denied as moot plaintiff’s request for a temporary 25 restraining order. (Id.) Plaintiff was given twenty-eight (28) days to amend the complaint and 26 was warned that failure to do so by the required deadline could result in sanctions, including 27 “dismissal of the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” (Id. 28 at 5.) The clerk’s office attempted to serve the order on plaintiff at the address provided by mail, 1 | but on January 17, 2023, U.S. Postal Service returned the order as undeliverable. 2 Under Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing pro se must keep the court advised as to his or 3 || her current address. If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff by the clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal 4 | Service, and the plaintiff fails to advise the court of a current address within sixty-three (63) days, 5 || the court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. L.R. 183(b). Here, 6 || plaintiff was to notify the court of any change of address by March 14, 2023, 1.e., within sixty- 7 || three (63) days of the court’s January 10, 2023 order. Because that date has passed and plaintiff 8 | has not notified the court of a current address, the court recommends that plaintiff's claims be 9 || dismissed without prejudiced. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 11 1. Plaintiff's claims be DISMISSED without prejudice under Local Rule 183(b); and 12 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 14 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).. Within fourteen (14) 15 || days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 16 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 17 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 18 || shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 19 || objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 20 || waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 21 | Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 | Dated: April 18, 2023 / □□ I / dle ae 8 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 || 21,hafe.1370 28