Paez, Jr. v. Health
ORDER DISMISSING Action, without Prejudice, for Failure to Provide a Current Address signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 07/25/2017. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GUILLERMO G. PAEZ, JR.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00285-MJS (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE
A CURRENT ADDRESS
CORIZON HEALTH, INC.,
CLERK TO TERMINATE PENDING
MOTIONS AND CLOSE CASE
Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
20 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate
21 Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.) No other parties have appeared.
On April 25, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
23 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and found it stated no cognizable claims. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff was
24 directed to file an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within thirty days.
25 On May 12, 2017, the screening order was returned as undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff
26 has not updated his address.
Local Rule 183(b) requires parties proceeding pro se to keep the Court apprised of
2 their current address: “If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is
3 returned by the U.S. Postal service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and
4 opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court
5 may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Here, more than sixty6 three days have passed without Plaintiff providing the Court with his current address.
Accordingly, the action is HEREBY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, based
8 on Plaintiff’s failure to provide a current address. The Clerk of Court shall terminate any
9 pending motions and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 25, 2017
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?