Williams v. Haag et al

Filing 52

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 39 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 12/5/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/5/2013: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LAWRENCE LEE WILLIAMS,

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. C 12-3310 SI (pr)

Plaintiff,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.
MELINDA HAAG,
United States Attorney; et al.,
Defendants.
/

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Mail that was sent from the court on July 31, 2013 to plaintiff at the most recent address
he provided was returned to the court undelivered on September 10, 2013, marked "return to
sender - attempted - not known - unable to forward." See Docket # 5. Plaintiff has not filed
anything with the court since the undeliverable mail was returned to the court. More than sixty
days have passed since the mail was first 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 file a notice of his 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). Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DISMISSED as moot. (Docket # 39.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 5, 2013

_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge