From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McQueen v. California

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 13, 2022
2:17-cv-0378 WBS AC P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2022)

Opinion

2:17-cv-0378 WBS AC P

10-13-2022

SAMORY MCQUEEN, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

The last change of address filed by plaintiff in March 2020 indicates that plaintiff is no longer incarcerated. See ECF No. 23. Additionally, a recent search for plaintiff via his name and former prison identification number on the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's website yielded a “no records found matching that criteria” result. See generally https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/search.aspx (brackets added) (search CDCR Number field for “F30195” or search Last Name field for “McQueen”) (last visited October 13, 2022).

In February and March 2022, two court orders were served on plaintiff's address of record. See ECF Nos. 25, 25. On June 8, 2022, the orders were returned to the court by the postal service.

It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b), which requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change. More than sixty-three days have passed since the court orders were returned by the postal service, and plaintiff has failed to notify the court of a current address.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the current October 21, 2022, deadline for defendants to opt out of the Post-Screening ADR Project (see ECF No. 39) is VACATED.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b).

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, any party 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.” Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 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).


Summaries of

McQueen v. California

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 13, 2022
2:17-cv-0378 WBS AC P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2022)
Case details for

McQueen v. California

Case Details

Full title:SAMORY MCQUEEN, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 13, 2022

Citations

2:17-cv-0378 WBS AC P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2022)