Ramirez v. Tilton et al

Filing 13

ORDER RE INTENT TO PROSECUTE: That Plaintiff shall file with the Court a notice of current address and a notice of intent to prosecute no later than (14) fourteen-days from the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 2/20/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2009) Modified on 2/23/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. JAMES TILTON, et al.,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN VILLA RAMIREZ, Plaintiff,

No. C 07-04681 SBA (PR) ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CONTINUED INTENT TO PROSECUTE THIS ACTION AND TO PROVIDE COURT WITH CURRENT ADDRESS /

Defendants.

Plaintiff filed the instant pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). But such a dismissal should only be ordered when the failure to comply is unreasonable. See id. A district court should afford the litigant prior notice of its intention to dismiss. See Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 133 (9th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11, a party proceeding pro se whose address changes while an action is pending must promptly file and serve upon all opposing parties a notice of change of address specifying the new address. See L.R. 311(a). The Court may, without prejudice, dismiss a complaint or strike an answer when: (1) mail directed to the attorney or 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 attorney or pro se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b). In the instant case, it has been ten months since Plaintiff has communicated with the Court. Plaintiff filed a letter on April 1, 2008, and he has not communicated with the Court since that date. Accordingly, it is in the interests of justice and judicial efficiency for the Court to establish Plaintiff's current address and whether he intends to continue to prosecute this action.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff shall file with the Court a notice of his current address and his continued intent to prosecute no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. Failure to timely do so shall result in dismissal of this action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 2/20/09 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.07\Ramirez4681.41b-Notice.wpd

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JUAN VILLA RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. JAMES TILTON et al, Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-04681 SBA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on February 20, 2009, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Juan Villa Ramirez T-24667 California State Prison - San Quentin 4-EY-22 San Quentin, CA 94974 Dated: February 20, 2009 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.07\Ramirez4681.41b-Notice.wpd

3