(PC) Romano v. Sacramento Police Department, et al., No. 2:2014cv02470 - Document 30 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/4/16 ORDERING that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Randomly assigned and referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Dillon, M)

Download PDF
(PC) Romano v. Sacramento Police Department, et al. Doc. 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PERRY ROMANO, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-2470 AC P v. ORDER and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 This prisoner civil rights action is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate 17 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c). Two recent court orders were 19 served on plaintiff’s address of record and returned by the postal service.1 See ECF No. 25 (filed 20 and served January 4, 2016; returned January 29, 2016); and No. 29 (filed and served February 5, 21 2016; returned March 4, 2016). It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 22 183(b), which requires that a party appearing in propria persona promptly inform the court of any 23 address change, and authorizes dismissal of an action without prejudice if a notice of address 24 //// 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff was no longer incarcerated when these orders were served. The orders were served on plaintiff’s address of record, a street address in Woodland, California. See ECF No. 24. Between the dates that these orders were served, plaintiff filed a short letter concerning his submission of documents to effect service of process; the letter bears the date January 24, 2016, but does not identify plaintiff’s new or current address. See ECF No. 28. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 change has not been provided within sixty-three days after the return of a court order.2 Because 2 sixty-three days have passed since the postal service returned the aforementioned court orders 3 commencing January 29, 2016, dismissal of this action without prejudice is warranted for failure 4 to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b). 5 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. 7 8 Additionally, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b). 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 11 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 12 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 13 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 14 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 15 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 DATED: April 4, 2016 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 25 26 27 28 Local Rule 183(b) provides: A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 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.