IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 10, 2012
JOSEPH DUPREE, PLAINTIFF,
ROBERT CONRAD, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has filed what appears to be a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a former prisoner and while the allegations are difficult to discern it appears to relate to his parole agent or parole revocation. However, plaintiff is not currently in custody and plaintiff has failed to provide an address, simply stating he is homeless and living in motels.*fn1 Plaintiff has also not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the required filing fee to proceed with this action. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). As plaintiff has not provided any means for the court to contact him, there is no way for this action to proceed. Therefore, it will be recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Should plaintiff establish some way for the court to contact him he may re-file this action along with the filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a district judge be assigned to this case.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).