Timms v. San Francisco Police Dept., et al.

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 3/10/09. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(fj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JO'VAUGHN TIMMS, Plaintiff, v. SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants. /

No. C 08-1414 MHP (pr) ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On August 1, 2008, mail was sent from the court to plaintiff at the address he provided to the court and was returned undelivered on August 5, 2008, marked "return to sender" and "not in custody." Plaintiff has not provided any address other than the one to which the undeliverable mail was sent. More than sixty days have passed since the mail was returned to the court undelivered. Plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 3-11(a) which requires that a party proceeding pro se must "promptly file with the Court and serve upon all opposing parties a Notice of Change of Address specifying the new address" when his address changes. Local Rule 3-11(b) allows the court to dismiss a complaint without prejudice when mail directed to a pro se party is returned as not deliverable and the pro se party fails to send a current address within sixty days of the return of the undelivered mail For the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed without prejudice because plaintiff failed to keep the court informed of his address in compliance with Local Rule 3-11(a). The clerk shall close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 10, 2009 _______________________ Marilyn Hall Patel United States District Judge