Holmes v. Petersen et al

Filing 15

ORDER Denying Request to Reopen the Action 14 . Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/3/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ROBERT CALVIN HOLMES, JR.,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-12-3070 EMC

KYLE PETERSON, et al.,

12

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
REOPEN THE ACTION

Defendants.
___________________________________/

13
14

Plaintiff filed this pro se prisoner’s civil rights action on June 15, 2012. On November 1,

15

2012, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend because the complaint directed the

16

reader to “see attachments” for a statement of Plaintiff’s claim but had no documents attached. That

17

order came back undelivered on November 28, 2012 because Plaintiff failed to keep the Court

18

informed of his current address. Plaintiff did not provide any new address in the next several

19

months. On February 8, 2013, the Court dismissed the action because Plaintiff had not kept the

20

Court informed of his current address. In May 2013, Plaintiff sent a letter of inquiry about the status

21

of his case; in response, the Clerk sent him on May 24, 2013, a copy of the docket sheet, the order of

22

dismissal, and the judgment. On June 6, 2013, Plaintiff sent the Court a letter requesting that the

23

action be reopened.

24

Plaintiff’s request for the action to be reopened is DENIED. First, Plaintiff failed to keep

25

the Court apprised of his current address. He waited many months (i.e., from at least November

26

2012 until May 2013) to bother informing the Court of his address. Plaintiff failed to comply with

27

Local Rule 3-11(a) which requires that a party proceeding pro se must “promptly file with the Court

28

and serve upon all opposing parties a Notice of Change of Address specifying the new address”

1

when his address changes. Second, even if the action was reopened, the problem would remain that

2

Plaintiff never submitted a pleading that could proceed – the complaint he did file referred to

3

attachments that were not attached. It is not in the interest of justice to reopen an action in which the

4

complaint was and still would be deficient.

5

The Court notes that the dismissal of this action was without prejudice. Therefore, Plaintiff

6

may file a new action to assert his claims. In his complaint in such a new action, he must take care

7

to write a full statement of his claims and, if he refers to any attachments, must be sure those

8

documents are attached to the complaint.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Dated: July 3, 2013

13
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2