Stewart v. San Francisco Police Department

Filing 20

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 13, 2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KENNETH E. STEWART, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No.16-cv-04341-JST ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. No. 1. On 14 December 16, 2016, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend to address the 15 identified deficiencies. Dkt. No. 12. On February 13, 2017, an amended complaint was filed on 16 behalf of Plaintiff; Plaintiff’s minor son, Kenneth Stewart II; and Plaintiff’s ex-wife, Beatriz 17 Stewart. Dkt. No. 17. The amended complaint stated that Plaintiff passed away on January 27, 18 2017, id. at 1, and was signed by Beatriz Stewart, id. at 3. In an order filed on March 31, 2017, 19 the Court struck the amended complaint because it was filed by a non-party to this action. Dkt. 20 No. 18. In this same order, the Court advised Beatriz Stewart and Kenneth E. Stewart II that if 21 they were Plaintiff’s personal representatives or successors-in-interest, they must file a notice of 22 death of Plaintiff with the Court and a motion to substitute for Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 25 of the 23 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before the action could proceed. Id. at 2. The Court served this 24 order via U.S. Mail on Plaintiff at his address of record, and also served a copy on Beatriz Stewart 25 at the address she provided in the amended complaint. Dkt. No. 18-1. On April 12, 2017, mail 26 sent to the Plaintiff by the Court was returned as undeliverable with a notation that the Plaintiff 27 passed away on January 28, 2017. Dkt. No. 19. 28 Since the filing of the amended complaint, there have been no pleadings filed in this case. 1 2 Neither Beatriz Stewart nor Kenneth Stewart II have communicated with the Court. Pursuant to Rule 3-11 of the Local Rules of the Northern District of California, the Court 3 may, without prejudice, dismiss a complaint when mail directed to the pro se party by the Court 4 has been returned to the Court as not deliverable; and the Court fails to receive within 60 days of 5 this return a written communication from the pro se party indicating a current address. N.D. Cal. 6 L.R. 3-11. More than sixty days have passed since the mail addressed to Plaintiff was returned as 7 undeliverable. The Court has not received a notice from Plaintiff of a new address. The Court has 8 not received a notice of death of Plaintiff or a motion to substitute for Plaintiff. Accordingly, the 9 instant action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 3-11 of the Northern District 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 13, 2017 ______________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?