1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RYAN JAMES JOHNSON, Case No. 1:20-cv-00992-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

14 M. KENDRICK and R. FOWLDS, 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. ORDER TO ASSIGN TO DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff Ryan James Johnson initiated this action as a state prisoner by filing a pro se civil 20 rights complaint under

. (Doc. No. 1). For the reasons set forth below, the 21 undersigned recommends that the District Court dismiss this action consistent with the Court’s 22 Local Rule for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to keep the 23 Court apprised of a current address. 24 BACKGROUND 25 On April 14, 2023, the undersigned issued a screening order, which was mailed to 26 Plaintiff at his address of record. (Doc. No. 9; see also docket). On May 5, 2023 the mail was 27 returned “undeliverable, inmate paroled, inactive.” (See docket). Plaintiff’s change of address 28 was due no later than July 13, 2023. Local Rule 183(b). Plaintiff has not filed an updated 1 address as required by Local Rule 182(f) and the time to do so has expired. See docket. 2 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 3 Plaintiff was obligated to keep this Court informed of his proper address. Specifically: 4 [a] party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail 5 directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court 6 and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice 7 for failure to prosecute. 8 Local Rule 183(b); see also Local Rule 182(f) (all parties are “under a continuing duty” to notify 9 the clerk of “any change of address[.]”). Plaintiff was notified of his obligation to keep the Court 10 informed of his address and advised that the Court would dismiss an action without prejudice if 11 Plaintiff does not update his address within sixty-three (63) days. (Doc. No. 3, VIII.B.). 12 Precedent supports a dismissal of a case when a litigant does not keep the court appraised on his 13 address. Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming lower court and finding no 14 abuse of discretion when district court dismissed case without prejudice after pro se plaintiff did 15 not comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs keep court apprised of addresses at all 16 times); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal proper for failure to 17 prosecute and comply with local rules of court); Hanley v. Opinski,

(E.D. Ca. 18 July 10, 2018) (dismissing action for failure to prosecute and to provide court with current 19 address); Davis v. Kern Valley State Prison,

, at *1, n. 1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 20 2023). More than sixty-three (63) days have passed since the Court’s April 14, 2023 Order was 21 returned as undeliverable, and Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address.1 22 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 23 The Clerk of Court is directed to assign this case to a district judge for consideration of 24 these findings and recommendations. 25 It is further RECOMMENDED: 26 This case be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 183(b) for Plaintiff’s 27 1 As of the date of these Findings and Recommendations ninety-six (96) days have passed since the mail was 28 returned as undeliverable. 1 | failure to prosecute this action. 2 NOTICE TO PARTIES 3 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 5 | days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written 6 | objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 7 | Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 8 || specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

, 9 | 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 1991)). 10 "| Dated: _ August 9, 2023 Wiha Th fares Zack 12 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28