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)
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?