(PC) Simmons v. Cates ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS, No. 1:23-cv-0856 JLT GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 14 BRIAN CATES, et al., CLOSE THE CASE 15 Defendants. (Doc. 22) 16 17 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint against the defendants—including Brian 18 Cates; Kathleen Allison, Secretary of the CDCR; and Los Angeles County—asserting violations 19 of his civil rights. (See generally Doc. 1.) Plaintiff began to refuse the Court’s mail in August 20 2023. Consistently since that time, communications from the Court were returned with notations 21 from the Postal Service including: “Undeliverable, Inmate Refused;” “Undeliverable, Refused,” 22 and “Undeliverable, RTS, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward, Refused.” 23 The magistrate judge found the repeated refusal of the Court’s communications 24 demonstrates that “Plaintiff has actively chosen to abandon this case.” (Doc. 22 at 3.) Therefore, 25 the magistrate judge recommended the action be dismissed. (Id. at 4.) The Court served the 26 Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 27 14 days. (Id.) However, the Findings and Recommendations were also returned as undeliverable 28 by the USPS on January 17, 2024. 1 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of the 2 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 3 || Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Pursuant to Local Rule 4 | 182(h, service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective, even if returned. 5 | Further, the repeated refusal of Court mail indicates a plaintiff “plainly does not intend to proceed 6 | with prosecuting [the] action.” See Ilsung v. Yeh, 2021 WL 5179262, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 7 | 2021), recommendations adopted 2022 WL 800993 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2022) (dismissing the 8 | action without prejudice). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued January 2, 2024 (Doc. 22) are 10 ADOPTED in full. 11 2. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice. 12 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: _ February 8, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28