Sikking et al v. Housing of Urban Development (HUD) et al

Filing 83

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff Leon-Qiyam Pogue to Update Address; ORDER Requiring Plaintiffs to Continue Litigating This Action Diligently; and ORDER Requiring Plaintiffs Jeff and Barbara Sikking to Notify Co-Plaintiff Pogue of This Order. Plaintiff Pogue is ordered to file a notice of change of address in the docket by 12/28/2020. Signed by Chief Judge Larry Alan Burns on 11/18/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jdt)

Case 3:19-cv-01004-LAB-KSC Document 83 Filed 11/18/20 PageID.1199 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEFF SIKKING, et al.

Case No.: 19CV1004-LAB (KSC)
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

RICHARD C. GRISWOLD, et al.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Defendants.

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF
LEON-QIYAM POGUE TO
UPDATE ADDRESS;
ORDER REQUIRING
PLAINTIFFS TO CONTINUE
LITIGATING THIS ACTION
DILIGENTLY; AND
ORDER REQUIRING
PLAINTIFFS JEFF AND
BARBARA SIKKING TO NOTIFY
CO-PLAINTIFF POGUE OF THIS
ORDER

22
23

On September 23, after Plaintiffs repeatedly failed to serve Defendant

24

JPMorgan Chase Bank, the Court dismissed claims against the bank, and

25

dismissed the bank as a party. On October 2 the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for

26

reconsideration of that order, and the Court has continued to deny repeated

27

requests for reconsideration of that decision. The Court did not, however, dismiss

28

all claims, and several claims remain pending in the case. In particular, Richard
1
19cv1004

Case 3:19-cv-01004-LAB-KSC Document 83 Filed 11/18/20 PageID.1200 Page 2 of 3

1

Griswold and the City of San Diego remain as Defendants in this case, and their

2

respective motions to dismiss (Docket no. 32) are still pending.

3

Nevertheless, Plaintiffs appealed the Court’s dismissal of JPMorgan Chase

4

Bank’s dismissal to the Ninth Circuit. They also purported to appeal the entire case,

5

including rulings the Court has yet to make on the two pending motions to dismiss.

6

They have filed two separate notices of appeal, although both seek to appeal the

7

same things. The Ninth Circuit opened only one docket as to both notices of

8

appeal. It has issued a scheduling order, but has taken no other action.

9

Ordinarily, a notice of appeal deprives the District Court of jurisdiction over

10

the matters appealed. But a notice of appeal from a non-final, non-appealable

11

order does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction, and the Court may disregard it and

12

proceed to adjudicate the case. Ruby v. Secretary of U.S. Navy, 365 F.2d 385,

13

389 (9th Cir. 1966). The Court’s order dismissing claims against JPMorgan Chase

14

Bank is just such an order; it dismissed one Defendant and the claims against that

15

Defendant, but the action as a whole remains pending. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

16

The other matters appealed are not orders at all; rather, Plaintiffs have

17

anticipatorily appealed other future rulings. The only two avenues for an

18

interlocutory appeal of the kind Plaintiffs are bringing are Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and 28

19

U.S.C. 1292(b). See Corbello v. DeVito, 2012 WL 2782601, at *2 (D.Nev., July 9,

20

2012). Neither applies here, and no final judgment has been entered.

21

The Court therefore disregards both notices of appeal, and ORDERS

22

Plaintiffs to continue prosecuting their claims in this Court, without waiting for the

23

outcome of their appeal. They must do this even if they disagree with the Court’s

24

characterization of their appeal or the Court’s reasoning in this order. If they fail to

25

prosecute their claims, this action may be dismissed without prejudice.

26

Beginning in late October, mail sent to Plaintiff Leon-Qiyam Pogue has

27

repeatedly been returned as undeliverable. (Docket nos. 72–77, 79–81.) But mail

28

///
2
19cv1004

Case 3:19-cv-01004-LAB-KSC Document 83 Filed 11/18/20 PageID.1201 Page 3 of 3

1

sent to Plaintiffs Jeff and Barbara Sikking has not been returned, so presumably

2

their address is up-to-date.

3

Civil Local Rule 83.11(b) requires parties proceeding pro se to keep both the

4

Court and opposing parties advised as to their current address. Under that rule, if

5

mail directed to pro se plaintiffs is returned by the Post Office, they must notify the

6

Court within 60 days of their current address. Otherwise, the Court may dismiss

7

the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Nunez-Martinez v. United

8

States, 2020 WL 42457, slip op. at *1 n.1 (C.D.Cal., Jan. 2, 2020) (holding that

9

plaintiff’s failure to keep the court apprised of his current address in violation of

10

local rules amounted to lack of prosecution); Civil Local Rules 83.1, 83.11(b).

11

Plaintiff Pogue is ORDERED to file a notice of change of address in the

12

docket as soon as possible, and in no event later than December 28, 2020. Pogue

13

should not email his change of address, call chambers, or attempt to visit

14

chambers in person. Instead, he should file it in the Clerk of Court’s drop box or

15

else file it by mail, leaving plenty of time for it to arrive and be docketed before the

16

deadline. Plaintiffs Barbara and Jeff Sikking are ORDERED to notify their co-

17

Plaintiff Pogue of this order promptly.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 18, 2020

21
22
23

Honorable Larry Alan Burns
Chief United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
3
19cv1004