(PC) Hatton v. Sacramento Sheriff's Dept.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ERIC DEWAYNE HATTON, No. 2:22-cv-02143 KJM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, Defendant.

19 Plaintiff, a former1 county inmate, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 20 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that deputies at the Sacramento County Main Jail delayed providing him with food for several hours during another inmate’s emergency, and then served him cold food that contained the other inmate’s urine. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff filed a motion 1 Records indicate that plaintiff is no longer an inmate in the custody of Sacramento County. See https://www.sacsheriff.com/InmateInformation/SearchNames.aspx (inmate locator website operated by the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department). This court may take judicial notice of such information. Louis v. McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp., 460 F. Supp. 2d 1153, 1155 fn.4 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (court may take judicial notice of state agency records); Pacheco v. Diaz, No. 1:19-cv-0774 SAB (PC), 2019 WL 5073594, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2019) (court may take judicial notice of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's inmate locator system).

1 | to proceed in forma pauperis, but the certificate portion of the in forma pauperis application had | not been filled out and signed by an authorized jail official. CECF No. 2.) On January 17, 2023, | the court ordered plaintiff to file a fully completed in forma pauperis application or to pay the full | filing fee within thirty days. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff subsequently filed another motion to proceed | in forma pauperis, but the certificate portion of the new in forma pauperis application had again | not been filled out and signed by an authorized prison official. (ECF No. 9.) On March 21, 2023, | the court again ordered plaintiff to file a fully completed in forma pauperis application or to pay | the full filing fee within thirty days. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply | with the court’s order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Id.) 10 Those thirty days have passed, and plaintiff has not filed a fully completed in forma | pauperis application or paid the filing fee. The court’s March 21, 2023, order was returned as | undeliverable. However, pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record | address of the party is fully effective. Therefore, the undersigned will recommend this action be | dismissed without prejudice.

15 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 16 1. This action be dismissed without prejudice; and 17 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case.

18 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)(1). Within twenty (20) days | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff 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.” Plaintiff is 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).

25 || Dated: June 26, 2023 DB:15 || DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/S/hatt2143.ifp.fr -BORAH BARNES ITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE