Opinion
Case No. 2:19-cv-00364-RFB-EJY
10-22-2020
ERIC CHRISTIAN, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER HOYE, et al, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On February 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed his incomplete in forma pauperis application (ECF 1). On April 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second incomplete in forma pauperis application. ECF No. 4. On July 30, 2019, the Court denied both in forma pauperis applications, and gave Plaintiff until September 6, 2019 to file a complete in forma pauperis application or pay the $400.00 filing fee. ECF No. 5. The Court also ordered the Clerk of the Court to retain the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1), but not file it at this time. Id.
Plaintiff then filed a motion seeking some form of extension arising from separate cases. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff also filed three motions requesting extensions of time to file a complete in forma pauperis application (ECF Nos. 7, 10, and 12), each of which was granted. ECF Nos. 8, 11, and 13. On November 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed his third incomplete in forma pauperis application. ECF No. 14.
On December 26, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff's third in forma pauperis application, and gave him 45 days from the date of the Order to file a complete in forma pauperis application. ECF No. 15. The Court's December 26, 2019 Order was returned on January 9, 2020 as undeliverable. ECF No. 16. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed two Motions (ECF Nos. 17 and 18) bearing a different return address than the one he initially provided to the Clerk's Office. The Clerk of Court updated the return address on file to the address presented in ECF Nos. 17 and 18.
On April 17, 2020, the Court denied all three of Plaintiff's pending Motions (ECF Nos. 9, 17, and 18), ordered the Clerk of the Court to continue to hold Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) in abeyance, and gave Plaintiff one final opportunity to file a complete in forma pauperis application. ECF No. 19. The Court warned Plaintiff that if a "complete in forma pauperis application is not received on or before [May 7, 2020] the Court will recommend this matter be dismissed in its entirety." Id. at 3.
The Court's April 17, 2020 Order was returned as undeliverable on April 29, 2020. ECF No. 20. Plaintiff has not updated his address since that time. Local Rule IA 3-1 provides that a "pro se party must immediately file with the court written notification of any change of mailing address[.] . . . Failure to comply with this rule may result in the dismissal of the action, entry of default judgment, or other sanctions as deemed appropriate by the court."
Accordingly, and based on the history above, including providing Plaintiff multiple opportunities to file a complete in forma pauperis application or the $400 filing fee required to commence a civil action,
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be dismissed with prejudice.
DATED this 22nd day of October, 2020.
/s/_________
ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE
Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Finding and Recommendation must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).