Arroyos v. Moreno et al, No. 1:2019cv01576 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 6 Findings and Recommendations Dismissing This Action, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/27/2020. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALFRED ARROYOS, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:19-cv-01576-DAD-SAB Plaintiff, v. SALLY D. MORENO, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING THIS ACTION (Doc. Nos. 6, 8) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Alfred Arroyos is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On November 18, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order finding 22 that plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a cognizable claim and granting plaintiff leave to file an 23 amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the screening order. (Doc. No. 5.) However, 24 plaintiff did not respond in any way to that screening order. 25 Accordingly, on December 23, 2019, the magistrate judge issued findings and 26 recommendations recommending dismissal of this action due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim 27 upon which relief can be granted, failure to comply with a court order, and failure to prosecute. 28 (Doc. No. 6.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice 1 1 that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service. (Id. at 20.) On 2 January 7, 2020, the findings and recommendations were returned to the court by the U.S. Postal 3 Service as undeliverable with a notation indicating that plaintiff was no longer in custody. As 4 such, on March 16, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 5 recommending this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to provide the court with a 6 current address, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with a court order. (Doc. No. 8.) 7 Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any 8 objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service. (Id. at 6.) On March 25, 9 2020, the findings and recommendations were also returned to the court as undeliverable.1 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 11 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 12 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 13 Accordingly, 14 1. 15 The recommendation of the findings and recommendations issued on December 23, 2019 (Doc. No. 6) that this action be dismissed is adopted; 16 2. The findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of this action issued 17 on March 16, 2020 (Doc. No. 8) are rendered moot by this order and are 18 terminated; 19 1 20 21 22 23 24 25 The December 23, 2019 findings and recommendations were returned to the court by the U.S. Postal Service as “Undeliverable, Not in Custody,” while the March 16, 2020 findings and recommendations were returned to the court as “Undeliverable, Attempted – Not Known.” Local Rule 183(b) provides that [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. 26 27 28 The court notes that it has been over sixty-three days since the December 23, 2019 findings and recommendations were returned to the court as undeliverable, and plaintiff has not notified the court of a change of his address of record. 2 1 3. 2 3 4 5 6 This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to provide the court with an updated address, failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders; and 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 27, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
