Davis

(HC) Rush v. Davis

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 5, 20202:18-cv-00589California348 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON L. RUSH, No. 2:18-cv-0589 JAM KJN P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 RONALD DAVIS, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On September 17, 2020, petitioner was ordered to show cause, within fourteen days, why 18 this action should not be subject to dismissal for petitioner’s failure to prosecute and to comply 19 with the Local Rules. Fourteen days have passed, and petitioner has not shown cause or 20 otherwise responded to the court’s order. 21 Although it appears from the file that petitioner’s copy of the order was returned, 22 petitioner was properly served. It is the petitioner’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of 23 his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record 24 address of the party is fully effective. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 26 prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 27 These findings and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.