1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 HUSSEIN ALI, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-1364 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DENYING ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AS 14 BRIDGECREST CREDIT COMPANY, LLC, ) MOOT, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF ) COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 15 Defendant. ) ) (Docs. 5, 14) 16 )

17 Hussein Ali initiated this action by filing a complaint in Fresno County Superior Court, which 18 Defendant removed to this district court on November 6, 2024. (Doc. 1.) The Court served several 19 documents to Plaintiff at the only address on record—including its new case documents, standing order, 20 reassignment order, and minute orders—and the U.S. Postal Service returned all documents as 21 undeliverable, indicating the mailbox was closed and the mail could not be forwarded. 22 The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b), which requires a 23 party proceeding in propria persona to keep the Court informed of a proper mailing address. (Doc. 14 24 at 1-2.) The magistrate judge determined dismissal of the action is appropriate, after considering the 25 factors identified by the Ninth Circuit prior to imposing terminating sanctions for failure to prosecute. 26 (Id. at 2-4, citing Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002).) Therefore, the magistrate 27 judge recommended the Court dismiss the action without prejudice and deny Defendant’s motion to 28 dismiss as moot. (Id. at 4.) eee EINE IIE IE NII IRIE IID IDOI EI

1 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations Plaintiff at the address on record. 2 || However, the U.S. Postal Service again returned the Court’s mail as undeliverable on May 13, 2025. 3 || Despite this, the service upon Plaintiff is deemed fully effective pursuant to Local Rule 182(f). 4 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 5 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 6 || supported by the record and proper analysis.! Plaintiff did not keep this Court informed of his curren 7 || address, and did not take any action to prosecute the case following removal to the district court. 8 || Thus, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated April 23, 2025 (Doc. 11) are ADOPTED i 10 full. 11 2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 12 3. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 5) is denied as MOOT. 13 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 14 15 □□ IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: _May 30, 2025 ( LAW pA u bury 17 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 || ' The magistrate judge quoted the prior Local Rules, which required a party to notify the Court of a change of 27 || address within 63 days. See L.R. 183(b) (effective Aug. 7, 2023). However, the Local Rules were amended o January 1, 2025, and now require a party to inform the Court of a mailing address within 30 days. See L.R. 28 || 183(b) (effective Jan. 1, 2025). Regardless, Plaintiff failed to comply with his obligation to keep the Court informed of his current mailing address. Therefore, the Court adopts this finding.