Marshall v. San Francisco Sheriff Dept. et al

Filing 20

ORDER of Dismissal. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/22/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

LAVELLE DESHAWN MARSHALL,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF DEPT.; et al.,

12

No. C-12-4038 EMC (pr)

Defendants.
___________________________________/

13
14

On November 6, 2012, mail was sent from the Court to Plaintiff at the address he provided

15

on his complaint and was returned undelivered on November 15, 2012, marked “return to sender -

16

attempted - not deliverable as addressed - unable to forward.” (Docket # 10.) On May 7, 2013,

17

more mail was sent from the Court to Plaintiff at a street address in Oakland that was mentioned

18

within his complaint as a “last effort to contact Plaintiff so that he may file an opposition to the

19

pending dispositive motion.” (Docket # 18.) The envelope containing the May 7, 2013 order was

20

returned undelivered on May 17, 2013, marked “return to sender - attempted, not known - unable to

21

forward.” (Docket # 19.) Plaintiff has not provided any address other than the two addresses to

22

which the undeliverable mail was sent. More than sixty days have passed since the mail was

23

returned to the Court undelivered. Plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 3-11(a) which

24

requires that a party proceeding pro se must “promptly file with the Court and serve upon all

25

opposing parties a Notice of Change of Address specifying the new address” when his address

26

changes. Local Rule 3-11(b) allows the Court to dismiss a complaint without prejudice when mail

27

directed to a pro se party is returned as not deliverable and the pro se party fails to send a current

28

address within sixty days of the return of the undelivered mail. This action is dismissed without

1

prejudice because Plaintiff failed to keep the Court informed of his address in compliance with

2

Local Rule 3-11(a).

3

In light of the dismissal of this action due to Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court informed of

4

his address, Defendant’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment is DENIED

5

as moot. (Docket # 12, # 17.)

6

The Clerk shall close the file.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: July 22, 2013

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2