(PC) Pettus v. Crowley

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DARRELL H. PETTUS, No. 2:25-cv-1006 DJC CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS J. CROWLEY, 15 Defendant.

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On April 8, 2025, plaintiff was ordered to file a completed in forma pauperis affidavit and a certified copy of his prison trust account statement, and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. On April 25, 2025, plaintiff sought an extension of time “to complete any paperwork,” and filed another incomplete motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 16, 17.) On April 30, 2025, plaintiff was granted an additional 45 days to comply with the April 8, 2025 order. (ECF No. 18.) The 45 day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s order and has not filed the required documents.

25 Court mail addressed to plaintiff was returned on May 5, 2025, and May 12, 2025.

26 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned on May 12, 2025, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record | address of the party is fully effective.

2 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be || dismissed without prejudice.

4 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 fourteen 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. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

1] | Dated: July 15, 2025 4 aA 13 \ Aaa spe CHI SOO KIM 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 /L/pett1006.fifp