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.

Dashaun Nellum v. C. Stiltner et al

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


November 27, 2012

DASHAUN NELLUM, PLAINTIFF,
v.
C. STILTNER ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Allison Claire United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

On August 15, 2012, the magistrate judge previously assigned to this action dismissed plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend, and directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 28 days. See Doc. No. 15. On September 4, 2012, plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge's August 15, 2012 order. See Doc. No. 18. On October 25, 2012, the district judge assigned to this action affirmed the magistrate judge's August 15, 2012 order and directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 21 days after service. See Doc. No. 19. On November 16, 2012, plaintiff filed a declaration which reads that he was transferred to another prison, California State Prison - Wasco, after filing his September 4, 2012 objections, that he had not heard from the court about his September 4, 2012 objections, and that he should be given an opportunity to amend. See Doc. No. 20. Plaintiff's declaration does not include his updated address. See id.

A review of the docket for this action reflects that plaintiff was served with a copy of the court's October 25, 2012 decision at his address of record, which appears to be his prior prison, and that, to date, the served order has not been returned. The court will nonetheless direct that the Clerk re-serve plaintiff with a copy of the court's October 25, 2012 decision.

The court construes plaintiff's declaration as a request for an extension of time to file his amended complaint. So construed, the request will be granted.

The court also reminds plaintiff that, pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), he is under a continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of address, and that, absent such notice, service of documents at the prior address shall be fully effective. In order to satisfy this duty, petitioner must provide written notice of his new address in its entirety, not just the name of the institution. Providing a return address on the envelope is insufficient.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's declaration filed November 16, 2012 (Doc. No. 20) is construed as a request for an extension of time to file his amended complaint, and, so construed, is granted;

2. Plaintiff is granted 60 days from the date of this order in which to file an amended complaint;

3. The Clerk shall re-serve a copy of the court's October 25, 2012 order on plaintiff, along with this order, at plaintiff's address of record; and

4. Plaintiff shall provide the court with his new mailing address within 60 days of the filing date of this order;

5. Plaintiff's failure to update his mailing address, or to file an amended complaint, in accordance with this order, will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

20121127

© 1992-2012 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.