Cortez v. Evans et al

Filing 78

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. More than sixty days have passed since the mail addressed to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. The Court has not received a notice from Plaintiff of a new address. Accordingly, the instant civil rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 3-11 of the Northern District Local Rules. The Clerk shall terminate any pending motions. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 4/22/2013. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 ROBERT CORTEZ, 12 13 Plaintiff, vs. 14 M.S. EVANS, et al., 15 Defendant(s). 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 06-03827 EJD (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL 17 18 Plaintiff, a California prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983 against various Salinas Valley State Prison employees. The Court 20 granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss. (Docket 21 No. 50.) Plaintiff appealed the district court’s granting of summary judgment. The 22 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the summary judgment order only on 23 Plaintiff’s claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 24 (“RLUIPA”), and remanded to the district court to consider whether the piercing 25 regulation was the least-restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental 26 interest. (Docket Nos. 58 & 59.) The Court set a briefing schedule for the matter. 27 On January 11, 2013, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for an extension 28 of time to file a dispositive motion. (Docket No. 69.) A stamped copy of the order Order of Dismissal G:\PRO-SE\SJ.EJD\OLDER CASES\Cortez3827_3-11dism.wpd 1 mailed to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable on February 13, 2013, indicating 2 that Plaintiff was paroled. (Docket No. 77.) As of the date of this order, Plaintiff 3 has not filed a notice of change of address or submitted any further pleadings in this 4 case. 5 Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11 a party proceeding pro se must 6 promptly file a notice of change of address while an action is pending. See L.R. 3- 7 11(a). The Court may, without prejudice, dismiss a complaint when: (1) mail 8 directed to the pro se party by the Court has been returned to the Court as not 9 deliverable, and (2) the Court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written communication from the pro se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 3-11(b). 12 More than sixty days have passed since the mail addressed to Plaintiff was 13 returned as undeliverable. The Court has not received a notice from Plaintiff of a 14 new address. Accordingly, the instant civil rights action is DISMISSED without 15 prejudice pursuant to Rule 3-11 of the Northern District Local Rules. 16 The Clerk shall terminate any pending motions. 17 18 DATED: 4/22/2013 19 EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Order of Dismissal G:\PRO-SE\SJ.EJD\OLDER CASES\Cortez3827_3-11dism.wpd 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT CORTEZ, Case Number: CV06-03827 EJD Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. M.S. EVANS, et al., Defendants. / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. 4/23/2013 That on , 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. Roberto Cortez P-08468 Salinas Valley State Prison P. O. Box 1050 Soledad, Ca 93960-1050 Dated: 4/23/2013 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk /s/By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

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?