(PC) Sims v. Perez ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLTON MARIO SIMS, No. 1:19-cv-01639-ADA-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. CORRESPONDENCE FILED DECEMBER 2, 2022 14 MELISSA PEREZ, (Doc. 18) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Carlton Mario Sims is a state prisoner, previously proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this now closed civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On December 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a document with the Court dated November 24, 20 2022, that was docketed as a “Letter.” (Doc. 18.) It appears from the content of the letter and the 21 Court’s docket that Plaintiff is unaware this action was closed on July 16, 2020. 22 RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint on November 13, 2019, in the Sacramento Division 24 of this Court. (Doc. 1.) The matter was transferred to the Fresno Division on November 19, 2019. 25 (Doc. 5.) 26 On March 19, 2020, this Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 13.) Then 27 Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston found Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and failed to link the defendant to his claims. (Id. at 3-6.) Plaintiff 1 was given leave to amend his complaint within 21 days, or, alternatively, to file a notice of 2 voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the Court’s 3 order would result in a recommendation the action be dismissed for a failure to obey court order 4 and failure to state a claim. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff was served at his address then on record with the 5 Court. 6 On March 31, 2020, the First Screening Order was returned by the United States Postal 7 Service (USPS) marked “Undeliverable, Paroled.” 8 On June 25, 2020, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss Action for 9 Failure to Prosecute. (Doc. 15.) Specifically, Judge Thurston found Plaintiff had failed to keep the 10 Court informed of his current address despite his obligation to do so pursuant to Local Rule 11 183(b). (Id. at 1-2.) Judge Thurston recommended the action be dismissed without prejudice for 12 Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff had 14 days within which to file any objections. 13 (Id.) Plaintiff was again served at his address then on record with the Court. 14 On July 14, 2020, the Findings and Recommendations were returned by the USPS marked 15 “Undeliverable, RTS-Paroled.” 16 On July 16, 2020, District Judge Dale A. Drozd issued an Order Adopting Findings and 17 Recommendations and Dismissing Action. (Doc. 16.) Judgment was entered that same date (Doc. 18 17) and the case was closed. 19 On September 9, 2022, the Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations and 20 Dismissing Action was returned by the USPS marked “Undeliverable, Paroled.” 21 More than two years later, on December 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed correspondence with this 22 Court. (Doc. 18.) 23 DISCUSSION 24 Plaintiff’s letter appears to concern the claim he asserted in his original complaint, 25 although its not entirely certain because Plaintiff has provided no dates for the actions he 26 references therein. (Doc. 18 at 2-3.) Nevertheless, as noted above, it seems clear Plaintiff is 27 unaware this action has been dismissed for his failure to prosecute. 1 Because this action is now closed following judgment entered July 16, 2020, no further 2 action will be taken concerning Plaintiff’s claim. As explained in the Court’s First Screening 3 Order, Plaintiff’s complaint did not state any cognizable claim against the named defendant. 4 Plaintiff was afforded the opportunity to amend his complaint, curing the deficiencies identified 5 in the screening order, but he failed to do so. That is so because Plaintiff failed to keep the Court 6 apprised of his current address; all court issued documents issued after March 19, 2020, were 7 returned by the USPS as undeliverable. The Court has had no communication with or from 8 Plaintiff from that date until December 2, 2022, when the Court received Plaintiff’s letter. 9 Significantly too, Plaintiff’s letter does not include his current address. In fact, the only 10 address reference included is on a copy of a Notice of Electronic Filing dated November 14, 11 2019, when the matter was still pending before the Sacramento Division and was assigned case 12 number 2:19-cv-02301-CKD, appended to Plaintiff’s letter. On November 14, 2019, Plaintiff was 13 housed at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, California. (Doc. 18 at 5.) The Court’s docket reflects 14 that on December 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address, indicating he had been 15 moved to California State Prison, Sacramento. (Doc. 11.) The Court’s docket continues to reflect 16 California State Prison, Sacramento as Plaintiff’s address of record. 17 A search of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)’s 18 website, reveals Plaintiff Carlton Mario Sims, CDCR #AN4131, is presently housed at California 19 State Prison, Los Angeles County in Lancaster, California.1 The Court may take judicial notice of 20 public information stored on the CDCR inmate locator website. See In re Yahoo Mail Litig., 7 21 F.Supp.3d 1016, 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (court may take judicial notice of information on 22 “publicly accessible websites” not subject to reasonable dispute); Louis v. McCormick & Schmick 23 Restaurant Corp., 460 F.Supp.2d 1153, 1155 fn.4 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (court may take judicial 24 notice of state agency records). 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 Although this action is now closed, the undersigned will direct the Clerk of the Court to 2 | provide Plaintiff with one-time courtesy copies of the Court’s orders that were previously 3 | returned by the USPS as undeliverable. Beyond that, no further action by the Court is warranted 4 | in this matter. 5 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 6 For the reasons given above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve Plaintiff with the following documents: 8 a. First Screening Order issued March 19, 2020 (Doc. 13); 9 b. Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss Action for Failure to Prosecute 10 issued June 25, 2020 (Doc. 15); 11 c. Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Action issued 12 July 16, 2020 (Doc. 16); and 13 d. Judgment dated July 16, 2020 (Doc. 17); 14 2. The Clerk of the Court shall serve the aforementioned documents as follows: Carlton 15 Mario Sims, CDCR #AN4131, California State Prison, Los Angeles County, P.O. Box 16 8457, Lancaster, CA 93539-8457. 17 | ITIS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: _ December 9, 2022 | Ww VV KD Ke 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28