(PC) Smith v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, No. 2:2015cv02239 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/7/2016 ORDERING the Clerk to randomly assign a US District Judge to this case. IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Assigned and referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
(PC) Smith v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Department Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STACHA SMITH, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-2239-EFB P v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 11, 2015, the court found that plaintiff had failed to include a 19 certified copy of her trust account statement in support of her application to proceed in forma 20 pauperis, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Accordingly, the court ordered plaintiff to 21 submit a certified copy of the statement within thirty days and warned her that failure to do so 22 may result in this action being dismissed. The time for acting has passed and plaintiff has not 23 paid submitted a certified copy of her trust account statement or otherwise responded to the 24 court’s order.1 25 ///// 26 1 27 28 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of her current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case. 3 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 6 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 7 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 8 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 9 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 10 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 11 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 12 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 DATED: January 7, 2016. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.