(PC) Martinez v. Brandon ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CESAR ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ, No. 2:22-cv-1161 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MARTIN BRANDON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that police officers used excessive force, retaliated, and 19 discriminated against him in violation of his constitutional rights. 20 By order dated January 31, 2023, the court screened and dismissed the amended 21 complaint. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff was granted thirty days leave to file an amended complaint 22 and advised that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this 23 action be dismissed. Those thirty days have passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended 24 complaint, sought additional time to file an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 || Court’s order.! Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed for 2 || failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. 3 For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to randomly assign this 4 || action to a United States District Judge. 5 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 6 || Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(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 twenty days 9 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 10 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 11 || to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 12 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 13 | Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 | Dated: April 20, 2023 15 16 17 BORAH BARNES 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 || pB:12 DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/martl 161.f&r.fta 22 23 24} Records indicate that plaintiff is no longer in the custody of the California Department of 25 || Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). See https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/ (inmate locator website operated by the CDCR. This court may take judicial notice of such information. See 26 || Louis v. McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp., 460 F. Supp. 2d 1153, 1155 fn.4 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (court may take judicial notice of state agency records); Pacheco v. Diaz, No. 1:19-cv-0774 27 | SAB (PC), 2019 WL 5073594, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2019) (court may take judicial notice of 28 the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's inmate locator system). Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.