(PS) McCray v. City of American Canyon City Hall, et al, No. 2:2022cv01684 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 05/30/23 RECOMMENDING that the 1 Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Daniel J. Calabretta; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Licea Chavez, V)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) McCray v. City of American Canyon City Hall, et al Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMILAH MONIQUE MCCRAY, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, v. No. 2:22-cv-01684-DJC-KJN (PS) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON CITY HALL, ET AL., Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff filed this action in this court, along with a request leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis, on September 26, 2022. (See ECF Nos. 1, 3.) On February 28, 2023, the court granted 20 plaintiff’s IFP request and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend for failure to state a claim 21 for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was given twenty- 22 eight (28) days to amend the complaint and was warned that failure to do so by the required 23 deadline could result in dismissal. (Id. at 5.) The clerk’s office attempted to serve the order on 24 plaintiff at the address provided by mail, but on March 13, 2023, the U.S. Postal Service returned 25 the order as undeliverable. 26 Under Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing pro se must keep the court advised as to his or 27 her current address. If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff by the clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal 28 Service, and the plaintiff fails to advise the court of a current address within sixty-three (63) days, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. L.R. 183(b). Here, 2 plaintiff was to notify the court of any change of address by May 22, 2023, i.e., within sixty-three 3 (63) days of the court’s March 13, 2023 order. Because that date passed and plaintiff has not 4 notified the court of a current address, the court recommends that plaintiff’s claims be dismissed 5 without prejudiced. 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 8 1. Plaintiff’s claims be DISMISSED without prejudice under Local Rule 183(b); and 9 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 11 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 12 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 13 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 14 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 15 shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 16 objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 17 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 18 Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 Dated: May 30, 2023 20 21 mccr.1684 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.
