(PC) James v. Artis, et al, No. 2:2013cv00886 - Document 41 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/6/15 ORDERING that defendants request for relief from the Discovery and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 40 ) is granted.IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for plaintiffs failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES C. JAMES, 12 No. 2:13-cv-0886 JAM CKD P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 D. ARTIS, et al., 15 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 Defendants have requested relief from the April 2, 2015 Discovery and Scheduling order. 17 18 (ECF No. 40.) The docket indicates that this order was served on plaintiff. However, defendants’ 19 counsel has learned, and the record indicates, that plaintiff has not been in the custody of the 20 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation since his parole on February 10, 2015. 21 (See id. at 7-8.) Plaintiff has not kept the court informed of his current address pursuant to Local Rule 22 23 182(f), which requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address 24 change. (Id.) Defendants’ counsel attempted to locate plaintiff by contacting the prison 25 Litigation Coordinator and plaintiff’s parole agent; however, neither could provide a current 26 address for him. (Id.) As a result, defendants’ counsel is unable to depose plaintiff or complete 27 discovery in this action. (Id.) 28 //// 1 1 Modification of the court's scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. 2 Civ. P. 16(b)(4), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth 3 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking 4 the modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 5 diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the 6 prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. Here, good cause appearing, the court will 7 grant defendants’ request for relief from the Discovery and Scheduling order. 8 9 10 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ request for relief from the Discovery and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 40) is granted. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. See Local Rules 182(f) and 110. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 13 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 14 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 15 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 16 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 17 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 18 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 Dated: August 6, 2015 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 /jame0886.33a 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.