(PC) Martin v. County of San Joaquin

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND MARTIN, Case No. 2: 24-cv-2100-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS &

RECOMMENDATIONS

14 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 A recent court order was served on plaintiff’s address of record and returned by the postal 18 service. It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b), which requires that 19 a party appearing in pro per inform the court of any address change. More than sixty-three days 20 have passed since the court order was returned by the postal service and plaintiff has failed to 21 notify the court of a current address.1 22 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district 23 judge to this matter. 24 Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice 25 for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b). 26 1 As of January 1, 2025, Local Rule 183 provides that “[i]f mail directed to a plaintiff in 27 propria persona…