Pham v. City of San Jose et al

Filing 9

ORDER That Case Be Reassigned to a District Judge; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS , and the that the instant action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Objections due by 9/28/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 9/11/2012. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2012) Modified on 9/11/2012 (cv, COURT STAFF).

1
2

*E-FILED: September 11, 2012*

3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

7

12
13
14
15
16

No. C12-01750 HRL

TRIEU PHAM,

ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED
TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipality; SAN
JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT, a department
of municipality; OFFICER HERNANDEZ, an
individual; SGT. MONTONYE, an individual;
and DOES 1-20,

17

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE
DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Defendants.
/

18
19

On April 4, 2012, pro se plaintiff Trieu Pham filed this action, alleging civil rights

20

violations. There is no indication that defendants have been served, and the deadline for service

21

has passed. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). On July 5, 2012, the court issued a clerk’s notice continuing

22

the date for the initial case management conference and related deadlines. (Dkt. No. 4). On

23

July 10, 2012, that notice was returned as undeliverable.1 (Dkt. No. 5). Pham did not appear

24

for the August 7, 2012 initial case management conference. And, on August 8, 2012, this court

25

issued an order directing him to file a response, no later than August 24, 2012, explaining why

26

this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 7).

27
28
Although Pham never filed an application for permission to e-file, the ECF
system indicates that he may be receiving electronic notices of all court filings.
1

1

On August 13, 2012, the order to show cause was also returned as undeliverable. The

2

next day, the Clerk of the Court forwarded that order to the new address that the Post Office

3

listed on the envelope for Pham.2 (Dkt. No. 8).

4

There has been no response from plaintiff.

5

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court shall reassign this case to a District Judge, and the

6

undersigned recommends that the instant action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to

7

prosecute. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

8
9

within fourteen days after being served with a copy. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the District Judge

12

SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 11, 2012

13
HOWARD R. LLOYD
14

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Plaintiff was obliged to provide the court with his current address by
September 10, 2012. See Civ. L.R. 3-11(b) (providing that a case may be dismissed without
prejudice if mail has been returned as undeliverable, and “[t]he Court fails to receive within
60 days of this return a written communication from the attorney or pro se party indicating a
current address.”). Because plaintiff evidently is no longer receiving mail at the Los Gatos
address he provided, and since he has not given the court any other contact information, this
order will be sent to the address the Post Office has identified for him.
2

26
27
28

2

1

5:12-cv-01750-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Trieu Pham
2275 S. Bascom Avenue, Apt. 407
Campbell, CA 95008-4357

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3