Lopez, et al. v. U.S. Superior Courts, et al.
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/2/2017 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk be directed to close this case. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Zignago, K.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ROBERT LOPEZ, et al.,
No. 2:17-cv-01493-KJM-CKD (PS)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
U.S. SUPERIOR COURTS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, who proceed pro se, have filed an action based on an unlawful detainer action in
state court, and the failure to have a jury trial for said action. (ECF No. 1.) On August 24, 2017,
the court granted plaintiffs’ applications to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 4.) At the same
time, the court admonished plaintiffs that:
The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. In the absence
of a basis for federal jurisdiction, plaintiffs’ claims cannot proceed
in this venue. Because there is no basis for federal subject matter
jurisdiction evident in the complaint, plaintiffs will be ordered to
show cause why this action should not be dismissed. Failure to
allege a proper basis for subject matter jurisdiction will result in a
recommendation that the action be dismissed.
On September 5, 2017, the court’s order sent to plaintiffs was returned to the court as
undeliverable. It is plaintiffs’ duty to keep the court informed of their current addresses, and
service of the court’s orders at the addresses on record was effective absent the filing of a notice
of change of address. In relevant part, Local Rule 182(f) provides: “Each appearing attorney and
pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of
address or telephone number of the attorney or the pro se party. Absent such notice, service of
documents at the prior address of the attorney or pro se party shall be fully effective.”
Because plaintiffs have failed to respond to the court’s order to show cause, it appears that
they have chosen to abandon this action. Moreover, without a valid basis for jurisdiction over
this action, dismissal is appropriate.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
The action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
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)(l). 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. Martinez v.
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Dated: October 2, 2017
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
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?