Hanif v. Solano County Jail Medical Staff

Filing 38

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 10/21/10 ordering that this action is dismissed for plaintiff's failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. CASE CLOSED. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
(PC) Hanif v. Solano County Jail Medical Staff, et al Doc. 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. SOLANO COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL STAFF, et al., Defendants. / ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RAHEED AHMAD HANIF, Plaintiff, No. 2:08-cv-2306 JFM (PC) Plaintiff is a former county jail inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action is proceeding before a United States Magistrate Judge with the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). See Consents filed March 16, 2009 and October 6, 2008. By order filed June 4, 2009, this action was stayed due to plaintiff's transfer to Napa State Hospital. The June 4, 2009 order provided that plaintiff or defendants or both might file a request to lift the stay within six months from the date of the order or upon plaintiff's transfer from Napa State Hospital to a correctional facility, whichever was is sooner. Plaintiff has not filed anything in this action since it was stayed. On March 8, 2010, the Solano County Sheriff filed notice that plaintiff had been released on bail. On August 12, 2010, defendants filed a request to reopen the action to permit 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 them to file a motion for summary judgment. By order filed August 27, 2010, the stay was lifted and plaintiff was ordered to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. On September 8, 2010, the copy of the August 27, 2010 order that was served on plaintiff was returned undelivered. By order filed September 15, 2010, defendants were directed to forthwith inquire whether plaintiff provided an address when he posted bail, and notify the court of the results of their inquiry. On September 16, 2010, defendants filed a response to the September 15, 2010 order, in which they provide both an address in Richmond, California provided by plaintiff to jail officials on or about February 25, 2010 in connection with his release from jail, and an address in Vallejo, California provided by plaintiff at the time he was booked into jail. By order filed September 23, 2010, the Clerk of the Court was directed to serve a copy of the court's August 27, 2010 order to show cause on plaintiff at both addresses provided by defendants. In the same order plaintiff was directed to, within twenty days, file and serve a notice of change of address. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to comply with the order would result in the dismissal of this action. Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address or responded in any way to the court's September 23, 2010 order. Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed for plaintiff's failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. See Local Rules 182(f) and 110. DATED: October 21, 2010. 12 hani2306.33a 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?