Opinion
22-CV-01105-LK
01-18-2023
JASON PAUL KELLEY, Plaintiff, v. KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ADULT AND JUVENILE DETENTION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Lauren King United States District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson. Dkt. No. 8. Having reviewed this document, the remaining record, and the applicable law, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and dismisses this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
I. BACKGROUND
In August 2022, pro se plaintiff Jason Paul Kelley sued King County Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention and Jail Health Services under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. No. 5 at 1. He alleged that jail staff failed to provide timely and adequate treatment for his swollen left leg-a painful condition that continued to worsen and eventually spread to his foot. See id. at 4-8. Mr. Kelley also moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. No. 3. After granting IFP status, Dkt. No. 4, Judge Peterson screened Mr. Kelley's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and declined to direct service on defendants because of several deficiencies, Dkt. No. 6 at 3-5. Judge Peterson nonetheless granted Mr. Kelley leave to amend. Id. at 5. The Clerk mailed copies of these orders to Mr. Kelley's jail address.
This mail was returned to the Court with a notation indicating that Mr. Kelley had been released from custody. Dkt. No. 7. After sixty days passed without notification from Mr. Kelley as to his current address, Judge Peterson recommended dismissing this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Dkt. No. 8 at 2; see LCR 41(b)(2). No objections have been filed.
II. DISCUSSION
The Court generally reviews findings and recommendations “if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). Even so, the Court's independent review confirms that this action should be dismissed. A pro se litigant must keep the Court and opposing parties advised of his current mailing address. LCR 41(b)(2). If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff by the clerk is returned by the Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within 60 days thereafter of his current mailing address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Id. That is the case here. The orders mailed to Mr. Kelley were returned as undeliverable following his release from confinement and more than sixty days have passed with no update as to his current address. Dkt. Nos. 7, 9. // // //
III. CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Judge Peterson's Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 8, and DISMISSES without prejudice Mr. Kelley's complaint. Dkt. No. 5. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to Mr. Kelley at his last known address.