IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 1, 2011
ROBERT LOUIS WATKINS, PLAINTIFF,
JAMIE POPE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint against the California Public Employees Retirement System and an individual named Jamie Pope. On May 17, 2011, the court served upon plaintiff at his address of record an order granting plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing plaintiff's complaint with thirty days' leave to amend. (Doc. No. 7.) The court's records reflect that on May 27, 2011, plaintiff's copy of the order was returned to the court by the postal service marked "Undeliverable, RTS - Not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward."
It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 182, which requires every party, including any party proceeding in propria persona, to notify the court and all other parties of any change of address. Local Rule 182(f). "Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior address of the attorney or pro se party shall be fully effective." Id. Failure to comply with the court's rules or with any order of the court may be grounds for imposition by the court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within the inherent power of the court. Local Rule 110.
Good cause appearing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to keep the court apprised of his current address and his failure to comply with applicable rules and court orders.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-eight days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file and serve written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff's failure to file objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal the District Court's order regarding the findings and recommendations. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.