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.

Griffin v. Kern Medical Center

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


June 7, 2010

ROBERT GRIFFIN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
KERN MEDICAL CENTER, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Docs. 8, 11)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Plaintiff initiated this action by civil complaint filed on September 30, 2009. On the face page of the complaint, plaintiff indicated that he was housed at Wasco State Prison. On October 13, 2009, plaintiff was directed to complete and return to the Court an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff failed to do so and on December 22, 2009, a recommendation of dismissal was entered. On January 5, 2010, plaintiff requested an extension of time in which to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The motion indicated that plaintiff was housed at Wasco State Prison. The motion was granted on January 14, 2010. Plaintiff failed to file his application, and on April 13, 2010, findings and recommendations were entered recommending that this action be dismissed for plaintiff's failure to prosecute. On May 3, 2010, plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff's application indicated that he had been transferred to Pleasant Valley State Prison. On May 5, 2010, the docket was updated to reflect plaintiff's current address at Pleasant Valley State Prison.

Because it appears that Plaintiff may have failed to comply with the earlier order because it was sent to an address that was no longer current, the court will vacate the recommendations of dismissal.

Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 183(b) requires a party appearing pro se to keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his current address. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the earlier recommendations of dismissal are vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100607

© 1992-2010 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.