Jones v. Vivas et al

Filing 13

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 03/18/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2013)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
MONROE JONES,

No. C-12-3062 TEH (PR)

8
Plaintiff,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

9
v.
10
DOCTOR VIVAS, et al.,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11
12

Defendants.

13
/
14
15

On November 6, 2012, this civil rights action was

16

dismissed under Civil Local Rule 3-11(b) because sixty days had

17

passed since the Court’s mail to Plaintiff had been returned as

18

undeliverable and the Court had not received a written communication

19

from him indicating a current address.

20

returned as undeliverable was an Order to Show Cause that was filed

21

on August 9, 2012.

22

“objection” to the dismissal order, asking that his case be re-

23

opened and the Order to Show cause be reinstated.

24

stated that, when he filed his complaint in April 2012, he was

25

housed in the San Francisco County Jail, but he was released on

26

October 22, 2012 and that his new address was: Monroe Jones; General

27

Delivery; San Francisco, California, 94142.

28

(Dkt #7).

The mail that was

On November 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed an

(Dkt. #8).

He

On November 20, 2012, the Court issued an Order Reopening

1

the Case and Re-instating the Order to Show Cause.

2

an abundance of caution, the Court ordered the Clerk of the Court to

3

send a copy of the Order Reopening the Case and the Order to Show

4

Cause to Plaintiff’s new address and to his address at the San

5

Francisco County Jail.

6

(Dkt. #9).

In

On November 29, 2012, the mail that was sent to Plaintiff

7

at the San Francisco County Jail was returned as undeliverable.

8

(Dkt. #10).

9

change of address providing the same address he had given in his

On December 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a notice of

10

objection: Monroe Jones; General Delivery; San Francisco,

11

California, 94142.

12

had been sent to Plaintiff at his General Delivery address was

13

returned as undeliverable.

14

(Dkt. #11).

On December 26, 2012, the mail that

(Dkt. #12).

Because sixty days have passed since the Court’s mail to

15

Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable, and the Court has received

16

no further written communication from Plaintiff indicating a current

17

address, the case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Civil

18

Local Rule 3-11(b).

19

The Clerk shall close the file.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

DATED

03/18/2013
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.12\Jones 12-3062-Dis 2x Ret'd Mail .wpd

2