Opinion
No. 2:19-cv-1067-JAM-EFB PS
04-06-2020
MORREY SELCK, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANDHUMAN SERVICES; STATE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE, Defendants.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The court previously issued an order setting a status (pretrial scheduling) conference for February 19, 2020. The order directed plaintiff to complete service of process on the defendant within 90 days and to serve a copy of the order concurrently with service of the summons and complaint. The order also directed the parties to file status reports fourteen days prior to the scheduling conference. ECF No. 9.
This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff did not timely file a status report, nor did he file a proof of service demonstrating that defendant was properly served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(1) (requiring that proof of service be made to the court). Accordingly, the status conference was continued, and plaintiff was ordered to show cause, by no later than March 25, 2020, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to effect service of process and/or failure to comply with the court's order. ECF No. 11; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 ("Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court."); see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 183 ("Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure and by these Local Rules."). Plaintiff was also admonished that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id.
The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not responded to the court's order to show cause.
Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of the order was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the April 8, 2020 scheduling conference is vacated.
Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to timely effect services of process, failure to comply with court orders, and for lack of prosecution.
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." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: April 6, 2020.
/s/_________
EDMUND F. BRENNAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE