(PC) Mathews v. County of Sacramento

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JAMES LEE MATHEWS, No. 2:23-cv-00922 DC SCR P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 29, 2025, the undersigned issued a screening order granting plaintiff the option of proceeding on the cognizable claims in his first amended complaint or filing a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 17.) The order advised plaintiff that a failure to respond in 30 days would result in the recommendation that the action be dismissed. (Id. at 11.) The court’s order was then returned by the postal service. (See Docket.) Under Local Rule 182(f), a pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify the court of any change of address. Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior address shall be fully effective. (Id.) More than thirty days have…