Henderson v Sing, et al

Filing 24

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 2/28/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2017)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHAEL HENDERSON, Case No. 16-cv-01090-VC (PR) Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. DEPUTY HAMILTON, Defendant. On March 3, 2016, Michael Henderson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 11, 2016, the Court sent Henderson an order granting Defendant’s motion for an extension of time. On October 24, 2016, the order was returned to the Court as undeliverable because Henderson was no longer in custody. Additionally, mail sent to Henderson was returned to the Court as undeliverable on November 15 and November 22, 2016. Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11, a party proceeding pro se whose address changes while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of address specifying the new address. See Civil L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may, without prejudice, dismiss a complaint when: (1) mail directed to the pro se party by the Court has been returned to the Court as not deliverable, and (2) the Court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written communication from the pro se party indicating a current address. See Civil L.R. 3-11(b). More than sixty days have passed since the mail sent to Henderson by the Court was returned as undeliverable and the Court has not received a notice from Henderson of his current address. Accordingly, the instant complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 3-11 of the Northern District Local Rules. All pending motions are terminated. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 28, 2017 ______________________________________ VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?