(PC) McDaniel v. Daniels et al, No. 2:2020cv00895 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 04/29/2021 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiffs failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations.(Rodriguez, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLIFTON J. MCDANIEL, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 DANIELS, et al., 15 No. 2:20-cv-00895-TLN-CKD P FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 18, 2020, the court screened plaintiff’s 19 complaint and gave him the option of proceeding on the Eighth Amendment claims against 20 defendant Hood-Medland or of filing an amended complaint to fix the deficiencies with respect to 21 the remaining claims. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff was ordered to return the Notice of Election form 22 within 21 days. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff has failed to return the Notice of Election form and a 23 review of CDCR inmate records indicates that plaintiff is no longer in custody.1 See Lee v. City 24 of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasizing that the court may take judicial 25 1 26 27 28 On April 29, 2021, the court performed searches using plaintiff's full name and his prisoner identification number on the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s inmate locator website, which yielded no records. See CDCR Inmate Locator, https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/search.aspx (utilizing search terms “McDaniel, Clifton J.” and then “BK6263”). Accordingly, this court takes judicial notice of the fact the plaintiff is no longer incarcerated. See Fed. R. Evid. 201. 1 1 notice of undisputed “matters of public record.”), overruled on other grounds by Galbraith v. 2 Cnty. Of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2002). Therefore, it appears that plaintiff 3 has failed to comply with Local Rule 182(f), which requires that a party appearing in propia 4 persona inform the court of any change of address. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 6 prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. See Local Rules 7 182(f) and 110. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 10 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 11 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 12 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 13 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 14 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 Dated: April 29, 2021 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 12/mcda0895.33a.modified.docx 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.
