Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Cedriguez McCaa is the plaintiff in a civil action pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against FCI-Herlong and other defendants. The case is docketed as No. 2:24-cv-01191-DAD-CKD. The document reviewed here is Document 20, a two-page set of findings and recommendations filed and dated October 26, 2026, and signed by United States Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney. It is not a final judgment of the district court; it is a recommendation submitted to the district judge assigned to the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and the action remains pending unless and until the district judge acts on it.
The recommendation arises from a breakdown in communication with the plaintiff, who appears in propria persona. According to the findings, recent court orders were served on McCaa's address of record but were returned by the postal service. More than thirty days passed after the court order was returned, and McCaa failed to notify the court of a current address. The magistrate judge identified Local Rule 183(b), which requires a party appearing in propria persona to inform the court of any address change, and concluded that McCaa had failed to comply with that rule. The document contains no findings about the underlying allegations against the defendants.
The Court’s Holding
United States Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, expressly citing Local Rule 183(b). The recommendation rests entirely on the procedural default described above—court mail returned to the court and no updated address supplied for more than thirty days—rather than on the merits of McCaa's claims against FCI-Herlong or the other defendants. Because the document is a recommendation and not an order, it does not itself dismiss the action, and it does not adjudicate any underlying claim; it is case-dispositive in effect but not self-executing.
The findings and recommendations were submitted to the assigned United States district judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The document directs that within fourteen days after being served with the findings and recommendations, McCaa may file written objections captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations," and that any response to the objections must be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The document further advises McCaa that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court's order, citing Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute rather than deciding the merits of McCaa's claims against the defendants.
- The stated procedural basis was that court orders mailed to McCaa's address of record were returned by the postal service and that more than thirty days passed without an updated address.
- Local Rule 183(b) requires a party appearing in propria persona to inform the court of any address change, and the recommendation rests on McCaa's failure to comply with that rule.
- The document is a recommendation submitted to the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), not a final order of dismissal or judgment.
- McCaa was given fourteen days after service to file written objections, and the document warns that failing to object timely may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates how a federal court addresses an inability to communicate with a self-represented litigant whose mail is returned. The proposed sanction is tied to the specific requirements of Local Rule 183(b) and to the court's finding that more than thirty days elapsed after returned mail without any updated address. The without-prejudice framing means that, if the district judge adopts the recommendation and dismisses, McCaa would not be barred from refiling the action.
Procedurally, the document establishes only a recommendation and an objections deadline; the source does not show the district judge adopting the recommendation, entering an order of dismissal, or entering judgment. The final resolution of the action therefore remains open, subject to the district judge's review of any timely objections and to the waiver warning grounded in Martinez v. Ylst.