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.

Royalton Mccamey v. California Department of Corrections

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


February 25, 2013

ROYALTON MCCAMEY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER

Plaintiff filed this action as a state prisoner proceeding pro se seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Two of the court's recent orders (ECF Nos. 36 and 37) were returned to this court on January 14, 2013. In the order at ECF No. 36, defendants were directed to re-serve their pending motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 14 and 31) upon plaintiff at his latest known address. That address, as reflected in the docket of another case, McCamey v. Furmer, Case No. 2:10-2553 KJM CMK P, was the Yolo County Jail. Now that order (ECF No. 36), inter alia, has been returned and marked as "undeliverable" because plaintiff is "not in custody." Plaintiff's most recent address change was docketed in Case No. 2:10-2553 KJM CMK P but not in this case. A single notice of change of address had been filed, indicating both case numbers.

Plaintiff is advised in the future to file separate change of address notices in each of his pending cases.

It appears that plaintiff has not received the court's orders in this case that were filed on January 4, 2013 (ECF No. 36) and January 7, 2013 (ECF No. 37), despite his attempt to notify the court of his change of address. In light of the returned orders, the court will once again and for the final time require defendants to re-serve their pending motions (ECF Nos. 14 and 31), this time upon plaintiff's residential address in Dixon, California. Proof of re-service must be filed in this court within five days. Upon this additional re-service of the motions, plaintiff will be required to file any opposition within twenty-eight days, after which defendants will have seven days to file any reply.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Defendants must re-serve their pending motions to dismiss, originally filed on August 10, 2012 (ECF No. 14), and on November 20, 2012 (ECF No. 31), upon plaintiff and file proof of such re-service, within five days of the date of service of this order. The motions must be re-served upon plaintiff's residential address in Dixon, California, now noted in the docket of this case.

2. Upon re-service of defendants' motions to dismiss, plaintiff will have twenty-eight days to file his opposition(s) to the motions, after which defendants will have seven days to file any reply.

3. In addition to serving plaintiff with this order at his Dixon residential address, the Clerk of the Court is also directed to re-serve, as a courtesy, the returned court orders (ECF Nos. 36 and 37) upon plaintiff at his Dixon address.

20130225

© 1992-2013 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.