(HC) Andersen v. State of California, No. 2:2009cv02626 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: [FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS VACATED PURSUANT TO 11/02/09 ORDER]ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/26/09 ORDERING the Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign this case to a U. S. District Judg e. RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed due to petitioner's failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. Assigned and Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due w/in 20 days. (Yin, K) Modified on 10/26/2009 (Buzo, P). Modified on 11/2/2009 (Plummer, M).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Andersen v. State of California Doc. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DOUGLAS ANDERSEN, 11 12 Petitioner, No. CIV S-09-2626 DAD P vs. 13 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 14 Respondent. 15 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Recent court documents were served on petitioner’s address of record and 17 returned by the postal service. It appears that petitioner has failed to comply with Local Rule 83- 18 182(f), which requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address 19 change. 20 21 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign this case to a U.S. District Judge. Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed due to 23 petitioner's failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. See Local Rules 83-182(f) 24 and 11-110 (E.D. Cal. 1997). 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 26 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 2 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 3 Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 4 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 5 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 DATED: October 26, 2009. 7 8 9 10 DAD:4 ande2626.133 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 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.
