Lopez, et al. v. U.S. Superior Courts, et al.

Filing 5

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.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT LOPEZ, et al.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-01493-KJM-CKD (PS)

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

U.S. SUPERIOR COURTS, et al.,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiffs, who proceed pro se, have filed an action based on an unlawful detainer action in

17
18

state court, and the failure to have a jury trial for said action. (ECF No. 1.) On August 24, 2017,

19

the court granted plaintiffs’ applications to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 4.) At the same

20

time, the court admonished plaintiffs that:

21

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.

22
23
24
25

(Id.)

26

On September 5, 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 orders at the addresses on record was effective absent the filing of a notice
1

1

of 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 respond to the court’s order to show cause, it appears that

6

they have chosen to abandon this action. Moreover, without a valid basis for jurisdiction over

7

this action, dismissal is appropriate.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

9

1.

The action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Dated: October 2, 2017

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23

14/ps.17-1493.lopez.f&R dismissal

24
25
26
27
28
2