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)

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