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.)

Download PDF
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

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?