(PC) Yellen v. Olivarez, et al, No. 2:1994cv01298 - Document 255 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/25/2011 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and for failure to respond to a court order. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections due w/in 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Yellen v. Olivarez, et al Doc. 255 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MIKE YELLEN, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. CIV S-94-1298 GEB DAD P vs. ANA M. OLIVAREZ, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that his rights under the Eighth Amendment were 18 violated during his incarceration at Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI) through exposure to 19 contaminated water that was both unsafe to drink and unsanitary for bathing, cooking and 20 maintaining oral hygiene. Plaintiff sought both money damages and injunctive relief. By order 21 filed January 18, 2011, plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief was dismissed as moot. 22 The record in this action reflects that plaintiff was released from state prison in 23 2004, and no activity in the action by plaintiff since January 2007. By order filed January 10, 24 2011, plaintiff was ordered to inform the court in writing within ten days whether he intends to 25 prosecute this action further, and plaintiff was cautioned that failure to respond to that order 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The ten day period has expired 2 and plaintiff has not responded in any way to the January 10, 2010 order.1 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for 4 lack of prosecution and for failure to respond to a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local 5 Rule 110. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 7 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 8 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 9 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 10 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 11 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 12 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 13 District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 DATED: January 25, 2011. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 D AD:12 yell1298.fr2 22 23 24 25 1 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the January 10, 2011 order was returned to the court as undeliverable, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 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.
