# (PC) Brown v. Newsom

> District Court, E.D. California · June 22, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10020020

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** June 22, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10020020

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DEXTER BROWN, No. 2: 19-cv-0948 MCE KJN P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
14 GAVIN NEWSOM, 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 propria persona inform the court of any address change.1
20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without
21 prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b).
22 ////
23

24 1 On June 5, 2020, an order mailed to plaintiff was returned as undeliverable, marked “deceased.”
Moreover, the inmate locator website for the California Department of Corrections and
25
Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) no longer lists plaintiff as housed in CDCR custody. In light of
plaintiff’s apparent death, it is impossible for him to prosecute this action. The undersigned has
26
considered whether to appoint counsel to represent plaintiff’s estate, but finds there are no
27 exceptional circumstances for doing so in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v.
Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36
28 (9th Cir. 1990); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).
MADE SLD VEY OCINVINS LENG IN RAC OPI eee PAY ove

1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
2 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days
3 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
4 | with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings
5 | and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen
6 | days after service of the objections. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
7 | specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Y1st, 951
8 | F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
9 | Dated: June 22, 2020 Fe a Al L Nosrcrteecsce.
10 KENDALL J. NE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12 | Brown948.33
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10020020. Public record. Not legal advice.