Jones v. Mendocino County

N.D. California

Jones v. Mendocino County

DecidedSeptember 30, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-01182

StatusUnknown

This text of Jones v. Mendocino County (Jones v. Mendocino County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Mendocino County, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 LAMONT WILLIAM JONES, 7 Case No. 25-cv-01182-EMC Plaintiff, 8 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE 9 MENDOCINO COUNTY, et al., 10 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff Lamont William Jones filed the instant pro se civil rights lawsuit on February 5, 14 2025. ECF No. 1. The matter was recently reassigned from a magistrate judge to the undersigned 15 in light of a Ninth Circuit decision.1 16 Prior to reassignment, on July 10, 2025, the Court (Ryu, J.) ordered Jones to provide a 17 current address. ECF No. 7. On July 29, 2025, the Court’s order directing Jones to provide a 18 current address was returned and marked as undeliverable. ECF No. 8. More than two months 19 have passed, and Jones has not updated his address or otherwise communicated with the Court. 20 Given that Jones failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 3-11, the matter is DISMISSED 21 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming 22 dismissal of pro se prisoner’s complaint for failing to notify court of his change of address). Any 23 motion to reopen this matter must be accompanied by a change of address form. The Clerk shall 24 terminate all pending motions and close the file. 25 26

27 1 Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503 (9th Cir. 2017) (magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction 1 This Order terminates ECF Nos. 4 and 6. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: September 30, 2025 4 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 5 United States District Judge

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 LAMONT WILLIAM JONES, 7 Case No. 25-cv-01182-EMC Plaintiff, 8 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE 9 MENDOCINO COUNTY, et al., 10 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff Lamont William Jones filed the instant pro se civil rights lawsuit on February 5, 14 2025. ECF No. 1. The matter was recently reassigned from a magistrate judge to the undersigned 15 in light of a Ninth Circuit decision.1 16 Prior to reassignment, on July 10, 2025, the Court (Ryu, J.) ordered Jones to provide a 17 current address. ECF No. 7. On July 29, 2025, the Court’s order directing Jones to provide a 18 current address was returned and marked as undeliverable. ECF No. 8. More than two months 19 have passed, and Jones has not updated his address or otherwise communicated with the Court. 20 Given that Jones failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 3-11, the matter is DISMISSED 21 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming 22 dismissal of pro se prisoner’s complaint for failing to notify court of his change of address). Any 23 motion to reopen this matter must be accompanied by a change of address form. The Clerk shall 24 terminate all pending motions and close the file. 25 26

27 1 Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503 (9th Cir. 2017) (magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction 1 This Order terminates ECF Nos. 4 and 6. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: September 30, 2025 4 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 5 United States District Judge

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jones v. Mendocino County, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-mendocino-county-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack