1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT DEAN NEICE, Case No. 1:21-cv-00905-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 14 DONNY YOUNGBLOOD, KERN FAILURE TO PROSECUTE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, KERN 15 COUNTY CHIEF MEDICAL 14-DAY DEADLINE ADMINISTRATOR, and KERN 16 COUNTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATION, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff Robert Dean Neice initiated this action as a pretrial detainee by filing a pro se 20 civil rights complaint on June 7, 2021. (Doc. No. 1, “Complaint”). For the reasons set forth 21 below, the undersigned recommends that the District Court dismiss this action consistent with the 22 Court’s Local Rule for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to 23 keep the Court appraised of a current address. 24 BACKGROUND 25 On May 24, 2023, the undersigned issued a screening order finding Plaintiff’s Complaint 26 failed to state a claim. (Doc. No. 9). On June 7, 2023, the May 24, 2023 Order was returned as 27 undeliverable and unable to forward. See docket. Plaintiff’s change of address was due no later 28 than August 9, 2023. Local Rule 183(b). Plaintiff has not filed an updated address as required by 1 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. 2, 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, No. 1:22-CV-1489-JLT-EPG (PC),

2992980, at *1, fn 1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2023). More than sixty-three (63) days has passed since 21 the Court’s May 24, 2023 Order was returned as undeliverable, and Plaintiff has not filed a notice 22 of change of address.1 23 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 24 The Clerk of Court randomly assign this case to a District Judge. 25 Accordingly, it is 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 sixty-eighty (68) days has 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 14, 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