Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jayne v. Sprint PCS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 11, 2009

MICHAEL AARON JAYNE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SPRINT PCS, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 20, 2009 (docket # 92), the undersigned filed findings and recommendations, recommending dismissal of this action for plaintiff's failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. In objections, filed on May 1, 2009, plaintiff represents that since his last communication he has evidently been in and out of Shasta County Jail and has also been housed in CSP-Sacramento. He declares under penalty of perjury that he had made a good faith effort to keep the court updated as to his whereabouts, although it is not clear to the court that at a minimum while he was apparently out on bail for a period of a month and a half he could not have made a better effort. See Objections. Although the court's docket does not show that plaintiff filed his notice of change of address until April 20, 2009 (docket # 93), that is, after the pending findings and recommendations were docketed (on the same day) and after no less than five docket entries demonstrated that court documents served and re-served on plaintiff had been returned as undeliverable, the court will vacate the pending findings and recommendations.

However, plaintiff is cautioned that he must keep the court apprised of his current address at all times because in future such a belated notice of address change will not have the same result.

Plaintiff indicates in his objections that he has not received any court documents since February 1, 2009 (of course, he means other than the instant findings and recommendations, which were re-served upon him at his new address, as was the scheduling order at docket # 91). His failure to receive earlier filings which were both served and re-served is precisely why it is important to keep the court updated as to the current address. As the court is vacating the findings and recommendations at this time, the court, on this occasion only, will once again direct re-service of court mail, not yet re-served upon the latest address, that has been returned (more than once) since February of 2009.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations, filed on April 20, 2009 (docket # 92) are vacated;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to re-serve upon plaintiff the court filings at docket numbers 86, 88, and 90; and

3. Plaintiff is cautioned to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times; failure to do so in future will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action that will not be rescinded.

20090511

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.