Lopez, et al. v. Department of Veteran Affairs

Filing 4

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/4/2017 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk be directed to close this case. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LOPEZ, et al.,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:17-cv-01474-JAM-KJN (PS)
Plaintiffs,

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN
AFFAIRS,
Defendant.

17
18

Plaintiffs, who proceed pro se, filed this action and requested leave to proceed in forma

19

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) On August 29, 2017, the court denied

20

plaintiffs’ applications to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered plaintiffs to “either (a) pay the

21

applicable filing fee or (b) each file an application to proceed in forma pauperis that adequately

22

demonstrates that each plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee” within 28 days. (ECF No. 3.)

23

Moreover, the court admonished plaintiffs that “failure to either pay the filing fee or file sufficient

24

applications to proceed in forma pauperis by the above deadline will result in a recommendation

25

that the action be dismissed.” (Id.)

26

On September 21, 2017, the court’s order sent to plaintiffs was returned to the court as

27

undeliverable. It is plaintiffs’ duty to keep the court informed of their current addresses, and

28

service of the court’s order at the address on record was effective absent the filing of a notice of
1

1

change of address. In relevant part, Local Rule 182(f) provides: “Each appearing attorney and

2

pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of

3

address or telephone number of the attorney or the pro se party. Absent such notice, service of

4

documents at the prior address of the attorney or pro se party shall be fully effective.”

5

Because plaintiffs have failed to pay the filing fee or submit revised applications to

6

proceed in forma pauperis within 28 days of the court’s previous order, it appears that they have

7

chosen to abandon this action.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

9

1.

The action be dismissed without prejudice.

10

2.

The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

11

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

12

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

13

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

14

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

15

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

16

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

17

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

18

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED

19

Dated: October 4, 2017

20
21
22
14/ps.17-1474.lopez.F&R dismissal

23
24
25
26
27
28
2