Opinion
No. 2:15-cv-2579 AC P
03-15-2016
EDWARD BRIDGEMAN, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA CORRECTION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff commenced this prisoner civil rights action by filing a complaint on December 14, 2015. This action is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c). By order filed December 29, 2015, plaintiff was directed to submit a fully completed in forma pauperis application or pay the appropriate filing fee within thirty days. See ECF No. 5. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to comply with the court's order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See id. at 2.
Plaintiff submitted an "Order Re. Consent or Request for Reassignment" indicating both that he consented, and did not consent, to the authority of the undersigned Magistrate Judge for all purposes. See ECF No. 4; see also ECF No. 5 (directing plaintiff to choose only one of the options).
The thirty-day period has long expired and plaintiff has not responded to the court's order. Moreover, review of the Inmate Locator Website operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) indicates that plaintiff continues to be incarcerated at the California Medical Facility, where plaintiff was incarcerated when he commenced this action. The court infers from this fact that plaintiff received the court's prior order and chose to disregard it.
See http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/ (Inmate Locator website operated by CDCR). This Court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201; see also City of Sausalito v. O'Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1224 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004) ("We may take judicial notice of a record of a state agency not subject to reasonable dispute."). --------
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a District Judge to this action.
Additionally, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after service of these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court; such 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). DATED: March 15, 2016
/s/_________
ALLISON CLAIRE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE