Jordan v. Armstrong

Filing 6

ORDER re 1 Complaint filed by Imhotep Jordan, Jr.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 1/19/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
SHOW CONTINUED INTENT TO
PROSECUTE THIS ACTION

Plaintiff,

6
7

No. C 11-06314 SBA (PR)

IMHOTEP JORDAN, JR.,

v.

8

JUDGE SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG,

9

Defendant.

/

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff commenced the instant pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by filing a document
on December 14, 2011 entitled, "Instrument of Certification of Judicial Breach of Contractual Oath
of Office By: Unclean Hands, Fraudulent Concealment, Fraud, Misapplication of State and Federal
Law, Corruption, Misprison [sic], Malfeasance of Office, Interference, Denial, Abrogation,
Infringement Upon Judgment Creditors God Vested Sovereign Sentient Rights and Freedoms Under
Color of Law. Demand for Certified Response."1 (Pl.'s Dec. 14, 2011 Filing at 1 (emphasis in
original).) Also on December 14, 2011, the Clerk sent Plaintiff a notice directing him to pay the
filing fee or to file a completed in forma pauperis application. The Clerk sent Plaintiff a second
notice directing him to file a completed civil rights complaint form. Finally, the Clerk sent Plaintiff
a copy of his aforementioned December 14, 2011 filing.
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

24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that the aforementioned document filed in the instant case lists the
undersigned judge as a defendant. Though not entirely clear, Plaintiff appears to express disagreement
with the undersigned judge's handing of his "Request for Entry of Default Judgment," which was filed
in Case No. C 11-2668 SBA (PR). (Pl.'s Dec. 14, 2011 Filing at 1.) If Plaintiff intends to bring an
action against the undersigned judge pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, the Court reminds him that federal
judges are absolutely immune from these claims. See Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir.
1996); Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1394 (9th Cir. 1987) (applying judicial
immunity to actions under Bivens), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1040 (1988). This is because if a federal
judge violates a litigant's constitutional rights in a proceeding pending in federal court, Congress has
provided carefully structured procedures for taking appeals and for petitioning for extraordinary writs
in Title 28 of the United States Code. See id.

1

should only be ordered when the failure to comply is unreasonable. See id. A district court should

2

afford the litigant prior notice of its intention to dismiss. See Malone v. United States Postal Serv.,

3

833 F.2d 128, 133 (9th Cir. 1987).

4

In the instant case, Plaintiff has failed to communicate with the Court since he filed this

5

action. On January 3, 2012 and again on January 6, 2012, mail sent to Plaintiff was returned as

6

undeliverable with the notation: "Returned to Sender -- Refused," as well as additional handwritten

7

notations: "Inmate Refused Mail on 12-29-11," and "Inmate Refused on 1-3-12," respectively.

8
9

Accordingly, it is in the interests of justice and judicial efficiency for the Court to establish
whether Plaintiff intends to continue to prosecute this action. Plaintiff shall file a notice of his
continued intent to prosecute no later than thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Failure to do so

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of

12

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Malone, 833 F.2d at 133 (the district court should afford

13

the litigant prior notice before dismissing for failure to prosecute).

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

1/19/12
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

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

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.11\Jordan6314.41(b)-notice.frm

2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IMHOTEP JORDAN JR,
Case Number: CV11-06314 SBA

5
6
7
8

Plaintiff,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
v.
SAUNDRA B ARMSTRONG et al,
Defendant.

/

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

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 January 23, 2012, 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.

14
15

17

Imhotep Jordan C-71742
Calipatria State Prison
P.O. Box 5002
Calipatria, CA 92233

18

Dated: January 23, 2012

16

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.11\Jordan6314.41(b)-notice.frm

3