Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jeffery M. Ellsworth, proceeding pro se, filed an action against Steven Martinez in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:26-cv-1889-DJC-JDP. On June 15, 2026, documents sent to Ellsworth were returned as undeliverable at the address listed for him. That breakdown in contact triggered the court's procedures for pro se parties who fail to maintain a current address on file.
On August 26, 2026, Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson entered an order directing Ellsworth to show cause for his failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. The order expressly warned that if Ellsworth did not respond within twenty-one days, the court would recommend that the action be dismissed. Ellsworth did not respond, and the deadline passed, setting the stage for the findings and recommendations dated October 14, 2026 and filed October 15, 2026.
The findings and recommendations rest on the Eastern District's local rules governing pro se litigants' address obligations. Local Rule 182(f) imposes a continuing duty on every appearing attorney and pro se party to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of address or telephone number, and provides that absent such notice, service at the prior address is fully effective. Local Rule 183(b) separately requires a party appearing in propria persona to keep the court and opposing parties advised of a current address, and authorizes dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute when mail to a pro se plaintiff is returned by the U.S. Postal Service and the plaintiff fails to provide a current address within thirty days.
The Court’s Holding
Applying those rules, the magistrate judge recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), citing Ellsworth's failure to keep the court apprised of his address and his failure to respond to the show-cause order. The recommendation is grounded in the undisputed procedural facts: court mail was returned undeliverable on June 15, 2026, the show-cause order issued on August 26, 2026, and no response was filed before the twenty-one-day deadline passed.
Because the document is captioned Findings and Recommendations and is submitted to the assigned United States District Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), it is not a final dismissal by the magistrate judge. The operative directive is only that dismissal be recommended; 'IT IS SO ORDERED' enters the findings and recommendations themselves. Any party may file written objections within fourteen days of service, with responses due within fourteen days of service of the objections.
The order warns that failure to file timely objections may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order, citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998), and Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). The recommended dismissal is expressly without prejudice, so if adopted by the district judge it would not itself operate as an adjudication on the merits.
Key Takeaways
- A pro se plaintiff's action was recommended for dismissal without prejudice after court mail was returned undeliverable and the plaintiff ignored a show-cause order giving him twenty-one days to respond.
- Local Rule 182(f) places a continuing duty on pro se parties to notify the Clerk and opposing parties of any address change, and makes service at the prior address fully effective absent such notice.
- Local Rule 183(b) permits dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute when a pro se plaintiff does not provide a current address within thirty days of returned mail.
- The magistrate judge's ruling is a recommendation submitted to the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), not a final dismissal; parties have fourteen days from service to file written objections and fourteen days to respond to objections.
- Failing to file timely objections may waive the right to appeal the district court's eventual order under Ninth Circuit precedent.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how federal courts in the Eastern District of California enforce address-update obligations against pro se litigants, treating an unanswered show-cause order as grounds to recommend dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Because the recommendation is without prejudice, adoption by the district judge would not itself bar a later action, subject to any applicable limitations period.
The order also underscores the procedural posture of magistrate-judge findings and recommendations: the recommendation becomes final only through district-court review, and parties who miss the fourteen-day objection window risk waiving appellate rights. For practitioners and pro se filers alike, the case is a reminder that keeping a current address on file is a condition of keeping a case alive.