Cooke v. Liles et al

Filing 18

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 2/14/13. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 OAKLAND DIVISION 8 ALAN ANTHONY COOKE, Case No: C 10-0696 SBA 9 Plaintiff, 10 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE vs. 11 TERRY LILES, an individual, 12 MURL HARPHAM, an individual, STEVE WATSON, an individual, 13 ATF AGENT 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in the instant civil rights action. Civil Local Rule 3-11 17 obligates an attorney or a party proceeding pro se to keep the Court apprised of his or her 18 current address. Civ. L.R. 3-11(a). Where mail directed to an attorney or pro se party has 19 been returned as undeliverable and “[t]he Court fails to receive within 60 days of this return 20 a written communication from the attorney or pro se party indicating a current address,” the 21 Court may dismiss the action without prejudice. Id. 3-11(b). On April 8, 2011, mail sent to 22 Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. Dkt. 17. More than sixty days have passed since 23 the Order was returned as undeliverable, and the Court has received no further written 24 communication from Plaintiff since that time. Accordingly, 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the instant action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall close the file and terminate all pending matters. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 14, 2013 _______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 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?