Meeks

(PC) Hatton v. Meeks

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 22, 20232:21-cv-01551California677 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ERIC DEWAYNE HATTON, No. 2:21-cv-01551-TLN-CKD P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS MEEKS, Defendant. 16 A recent court order was served on plaintiff’s address of record and returned by the postal service. It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b), which requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. “If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Local Rule 183(b). More than sixty-three days have passed since the court order was returned by the postal service and plaintiff has failed…

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.