Kelley v. King County Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Judge Lauren King. The 5 1983 Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. (cc: petitioner via USPS)(MJV)

Case 2:22-cv-01105-LK Document 10 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

JASON PAUL KELLEY,
v.

CASE NO. 22-CV-01105-LK

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
ADULT AND JUVENILE DETENTION,
et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States

18

Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson. Dkt. No. 8. Having reviewed this document, the remaining

19

record, and the applicable law, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and dismisses

20

this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

21

I.

BACKGROUND

22

In August 2022, pro se plaintiff Jason Paul Kelley sued King County Department of Adult

23

and Juvenile Detention and Jail Health Services under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. No. 5 at 1. He alleged

24

that jail staff failed to provide timely and adequate treatment for his swollen left leg—a painful

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1

Case 2:22-cv-01105-LK Document 10 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 3

1

condition that continued to worsen and eventually spread to his foot. See id. at 4–8. Mr. Kelley

2

also moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. No. 3. After granting IFP status,

3

Dkt. No. 4, Judge Peterson screened Mr. Kelley’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and

4

declined to direct service on defendants because of several deficiencies, Dkt. No. 6 at 3–5. Judge

5

Peterson nonetheless granted Mr. Kelley leave to amend. Id. at 5. The Clerk mailed copies of these

6

orders to Mr. Kelley’s jail address.

7

This mail was returned to the Court with a notation indicating that Mr. Kelley had been

8

released from custody. Dkt. No. 7. After sixty days passed without notification from Mr. Kelley

9

as to his current address, Judge Peterson recommended dismissing this action without prejudice

10

for failure to prosecute. Dkt. No. 8 at 2; see LCR 41(b)(2). No objections have been filed.
II.

11

DISCUSSION

12

The Court generally reviews findings and recommendations “if objection is made, but not

13

otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

14

(emphasis in original). Even so, the Court’s independent review confirms that this action should

15

be dismissed. A pro se litigant must keep the Court and opposing parties advised of his current

16

mailing address. LCR 41(b)(2). If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff by the clerk is returned by the

17

Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within 60 days

18

thereafter of his current mailing address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for

19

failure to prosecute. Id. That is the case here. The orders mailed to Mr. Kelley were returned as

20

undeliverable following his release from confinement and more than sixty days have passed with

21

no update as to his current address. Dkt. Nos. 7, 9.

22

//

23

//

24

//
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2

Case 2:22-cv-01105-LK Document 10 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 3

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

The Court ADOPTS Judge Peterson’s Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 8, and

3

DISMISSES without prejudice Mr. Kelley’s complaint. Dkt. No. 5. The Clerk is directed to send

4

a copy of this Order to Mr. Kelley at his last known address.

5
6
7
8

Dated this 18th day of January, 2023.

A

Lauren King
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 3