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)
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?