-KJN (PC) Delgado v. CDCR Medical Health Care Department, et al, No. 2:2010cv02379 - Document 37 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/22/11 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to petitioners failure to keep the court apprised of his current address; referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
-KJN (PC) Delgado v. CDCR Medical Health Care Department, et al Doc. 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSEPH DELGADO, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. 2:10-cv-2379 MCE KJN P vs. CDCR MEDICAL HEALTH CARE DEPARTMENT, et al., 14 Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 / 16 17 On August 11, 2011, Susan Coleman, counsel for the sole remaining defendant 18 (Dr. Wedell), filed a declaration stating that she had been informed by plaintiff’s last place of 19 incarceration that plaintiff was released on parole on July 2, 2011. (See Dkt. Nos. 35, 36.) 20 Counsel states that she is unable to proceed with plaintiff’s deposition (noticed for July 20, 2011) 21 or other discovery matters if she cannot contact plaintiff. The discovery deadline is August 26, 22 2011. (Dkt. No. 32.) Plaintiff has not communicated with the court since June 8, 2011. (Dkt. 23 No. 33.) 24 Plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 182(f), which requires that a party 25 appearing in propria persona promptly inform the court of any address change. There appears to 26 be no way to contact plaintiff. Defense counsel was informed, on July 13, 2011, by the litigation 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 department at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”), plaintiff’s last place 2 of incarceration, that plaintiff had not filed a change of address with that facility. Similarly, 3 plaintiff has not filed a change of address in this court, although he was released on parole more 4 than thirty days ago. 5 Accordingly, given the passage of time, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that 6 this action be dismissed without prejudice due to petitioner’s failure to keep the court apprised of 7 his current address. See Local Rules 182(f) and 110. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 9 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 10 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 11 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 12 and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within 14 days 13 after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 14 right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 DATED: August 22, 2011 16 17 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 delg2379.address 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.