Hall v. San Joaquin County Jail, et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 9/18/2017 DENYING as moot plaintiff's 121 motion for reconsideration and plaintiff shall have 21 days to file and serve an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment or a st atement of non-opposition. The Clerk shall update the docket to reflect plaintiff's address of record is 80 S. Market, San Jose, CA 95112 and shall serve this order on plaintiff at both his address of record and 1919 Senter Rd., San Jose, CA 95112. (Yin, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TERRELL D. HALL,
No. 2:13-cv-0324 AC P
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Plaintiff is a former county prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants in this action filed a motion for summary judgment on June 22,
2017. ECF No. 116. After plaintiff failed to respond to the motion, the court entered an order on
July 31, 2017, in which it granted plaintiff an additional twenty-one days to oppose the motion
and warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute.
ECF No. 118. According to the file in this case, the copy of the July 31, 2017 order that was
served on plaintiff at his address of record was returned by the United States Postal Service as
undeliverable. It appears that at some point plaintiff obtained a copy of the order because he has
now filed a motion for reconsideration of the order. ECF No. 121.
Plaintiff appears to be under the mistaken belief that the July 31, 2017 order dismissed his
case. ECF No. 121. However, the order only warned plaintiff of that possibility if he failed to
respond to the motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 118. Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration will therefore be denied as moot and he will be given a final opportunity to
respond to the motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff has also filed two notices of change of address that contain two different
addresses. ECF Nos. 119, 120. According to the dates on the notices, the notice received by the
Clerk of the Court on September 12, 2017, was mailed by plaintiff on September 8, 2017 (ECF
No. 119), while the notice received on September 13, 2017, was mailed on or around August 29,
2017 (ECF No. 120). Because it appears that the earlier filed notice contains plaintiff’s most
recent address, the docket shall reflect that plaintiff’s address of record is 80 S. Market, San Jose,
CA 95112. ECF No. 119. However, as a precaution, the Clerk of the Court will be directed to
serve this order on plaintiff at both addresses provided so that plaintiff may notify the court of his
correct address of record if necessary.
Plaintiff is cautioned that he has an obligation to keep the court up-to-date with his current
address by promptly filing a notice of change of address with the court whenever his address
changes. Service of documents on plaintiff at his address of record, even if they are returned, will
be considered fully effective. L.R. 182(f). The court cannot be held responsible for plaintiff’s
failure to receive orders if he does not keep his address current.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 121) is denied as moot.
2. Plaintiff shall have twenty-one days from service of this order to file and serve an
opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment or a statement of non-opposition.
Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal without prejudice of this action for
failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
3. The Clerk of the Court shall update the docket to reflect plaintiff’s address of record is
80 S. Market, San Jose, CA 95112 and shall serve this order on plaintiff at both his address of
record and at 1919 Senter Rd., San Jose, CA 95112.
DATED: September 18, 2017
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?