Gjurovich et al v. Youngblood, et al

Filing 7

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiffs' Complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice. Matter referred to Judge O'Neill; Objections to F&R due with twenty-one (21) days of service of this recommendation; signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/13/2012. (Timken, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ALAN GJUROVICH, et al., 9 10 11 CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00481-LJO-SKO Plaintiffs, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. DONNY YOUNGBLOOD, et al., 12 Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE: 21 DAYS 13 / 14 15 I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 16 On March 29, 2012, Plaintiffs Alan Gjurovich and Star Hills ("Plaintiffs"), representing 17 themselves propria persona, filed a complaint against Defendants Donny Youngblood, Mark Surrel, 18 Rick Waters, and Doe Defendants ("Defendants"). (Doc. 1.) The complaint sets forth Plaintiffs' 19 address as "temporary mailing location: care of: general post near: [Porterville, California] non 20 domestic without the U.S." (Doc. 1, 1:1-4.) 21 On April 2, 2012, the Court issued civil new case documents and summonses as to 22 Defendants. (Docs. 2-5.) A scheduling conference was set for July 19, 2012, before Magistrate 23 Judge Sheila K. Oberto. (Doc. 2.) The case documents and the summonses were mailed to Plaintiffs 24 via U.S. mail on April 2, 2012, to the address provided in the complaint; all documents were 25 returned as "undeliverable, attempted not known" on April 5 and 9, 2012. 26 Plaintiffs did not file a proof of service of the summonses and complaint as to Defendants. 27 On July 11, 2012, the Court issued a Minute Order stating: "As the docket does not reflect the 28 defendants in this case have been served, and no answer having been filed, the Scheduling 1 Conference set for 7/19/2012, is vacated." (Doc. 6 (emphasis omitted).) The Minute Order was 2 mailed to Plaintiffs at the address indicated in the complaint on July 11, 2012, and was returned as 3 "undeliverable, insufficient address, unable to forward" on July 19, 2012. 4 For the reasons set forth below, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs' complaint be 5 DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to the Local Rules of the United States District Court, 6 Eastern District of California, Rule 183(b). 7 8 II. DISCUSSION Local Rule 183(b) provides: 9 12 A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 13 Here, Plaintiffs' complaint indicates that their "temporary address" is "care of: general post 14 near [Porterville, California] non domestic without the U.S." (Doc. 1, 1:1-4.) The Clerk of the Court 15 first directed mail to Plaintiffs via the U.S. Postal Service on April 2, 2012, and that mail was 16 returned to the Court on April 5 and 9, 2012, as "undeliverable, attempted not known." (Docs. 2-5.) 17 Plaintiffs have not provided the Court with a current address, and more than sixty-three (63) 18 days have passed since mail from the Court was first returned by the U.S. Postal Service as 19 undeliverable. Further, the Court attempted to serve the July 11, 2012, Minute Order on Plaintiffs 20 via U.S. mail to the same address; the mail was returned as undeliverable, insufficient address, 21 unable to forward. 10 11 22 The Court has no way to contact Plaintiffs; the address set forth in the complaint is invalid 23 and Plaintiffs have not provided the Court with an updated address. As such, pursuant to Local Rule 24 183(b), "the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute." 25 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 26 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the complaint be DISMISSED 27 without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 183(b) due to Plaintiffs' failure to provide the Court with 28 a current, valid address. 2 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 2 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 304. Within twenty-one 3 (21) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings 4 and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 5 captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The district judge 6 will review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 7 § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 8 waive the right to appeal the district judge's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: cc0hp0 August 13, 2012 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?