Opinion
2:21-cv-1622 DAD DB P
08-24-2023
NORMAN JOHN CRAIG, Plaintiff, v. EL DORADO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. By order filed March 30, 2023, the court issued an order dismissing plaintiff's first amended complaint with leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff did not file a second amended complaint.
Records indicate that plaintiff is no longer in the custody of El Dorado County. See https://edso.crimegraphics.com/2013/default.aspx?InitialTab=8 (inmate locator website operated by the El Dorado County Sheriff's Office). This court may take judicial notice of such information. Louis v. McCormick &Schmick Restaurant Corp., 460 F.Supp.2d 1153, 1155 n.4 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (court may take judicial notice of state agency records); Pacheco v. Diaz, No. 1:19-cv-0774 SAB (PC), 2019 WL 5073594, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2019) (court may take judicial notice of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's inmate locator system).
On July 6, 2023, the court issued an order directing plaintiff to file an amended complaint or show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff was granted thirty days to file a second amended complaint, and warned that failure to comply could result in a recommendation that the acti on be dismissed. (Id.)
Those thirty days have passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court's order. The court's March 30 and July 6 orders were returned as undeliverable, and plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address. However, pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.
Therefore, the undersigned will recommend this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. R. 110.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:
1. This action be dismissed without prejudice; and
2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case.
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 (14) 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. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).