Burke v. Caldwell et al

Filing 38

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 1/15/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2013)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

PATRICK D. BURKE,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7

No. C 11-02639 YGR (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

vs.
JOSE CALDWELL,
Defendant.

8

/

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the present pro se prisoner complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

11

On August 14, 2012, mail directed to Plaintiff by the Court was returned to the Clerk of the Court as

12

undeliverable with the following notation: "RETURN TO SENDER, ATTEMPTED -- NOT

13

KNOWN, UNABLE TO FORWARD." (Docket No. 35.) Accordingly, in an Order dated September

14

14, 2012, the Court determined that it was in the interests of justice and judicial efficiency for the

15

Court to establish Plaintiff's current address and whether he intended to continue to prosecute this

16

action. The Court informed Plaintiff that if he failed to do so within thirty days, this action would be

17

dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Court then directed the Clerk to send its

18

September 14, 2012 Order to Plaintiff at his last-known address, and it further noted: "If this Order

19

is also returned as undeliverable, the Court will dismiss this action pursuant to Northern District

20

Local

21

Rule 3-11 after October 15, 2012 -- sixty days from August 14, 2012, the date the Court's July 20,

22

2012 Order was returned as undeliverable." (Sept. 14, 2012 Order at 3 (citing L.R. 3-11(b)).)

23

On October 5, 2012, the Court's September 14, 2012 Order was returned undeliverable with

24

the same notation indicated above: "RETURN TO SENDER, ATTEMPTED -- NOT KNOWN,

25

UNABLE TO FORWARD." (Docket No. 37.)

26
27
28

To date, Plaintiff has not updated his address with the Court or submitted any further
pleadings in this case.

1

Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11 a party proceeding pro se whose address

2

changes while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of address specifying the

3

new address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may dismiss without prejudice a complaint when:

4

(1) mail directed to the pro se party by the Court has been returned to the Court as not deliverable,

5

and (2) the Court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written communication from the

6

pro se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b).

7

More than sixty days have passed since the mail directed to Plaintiff by the Court was

8

returned as undeliverable on August 14, 2012 and October 5, 2012. The Court has not received a

9

notice from Plaintiff of a new address. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED without

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

prejudice pursuant to Rule 3-11 of the Northern District Local Rules. The Clerk of the Court shall

11

enter judgment, terminate all pending motions, and close the file.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

January 15, 2013
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\YGR\CR.11\Burke2639.3-11dism.wpd

2