Randle v. Antioch Police Department

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 RAMELLO D. RANDLE, Case No. 23-cv-05800-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 BROCK MARCOTTE, et al., Defendants. 11

12 Plaintiff was an inmate at the Contra Costa County Jail (“MDF”) proceeding without an 13 attorney when he filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As explained in the Order 14 to Show Cause dated November 12, 2024:

15 On September 19, 2024, orders granting an extension of time to Defendants to file a dispositive motion were mailed to Plaintiff at 16 the address (the MDF) he provided in his complaint. (ECF Nos. 19- 21.) The same day, the Court received a letter from Plaintiff stating 17 he would be released from the MDF on September 26, 2024, and would update his address with the Court in this and his two other 18 pending cases.1 (ECF No. 22.) On November 6, 2024, the orders extending time were returned by the postal service because the mail 19 could not be delivered to him at the address he provided. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff has not provided the Court with his new address. 20 (ECF No. 24 at 1 (footnote in original).) The Court therefore ordered Plaintiff as follows: 21 On or before January 6, 2025, Plaintiff shall: (1) provide a current 22 valid mailing address and any identification number necessary for him to receive mail; or (2) show cause why this case should not be 23 dismissed without prejudice under Civil Local Rule 3-11. The failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this case without 24 prejudice. 25 (Id. at 2 (emphasis in original).) The order to show cause was returned by the postal service as 26 undeliverable on November 25, 2024. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff has still not provided the Court 27 1 with his current address or made any contact with the Court. 2 Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rule 3-11:

3 (a) Duty to Notify. An attorney or a party proceeding pro se whose address changes while an action is pending must promptly file with 4 the Court and serve upon all opposing parties a Notice of Change of Address specifying the new address. 5 (b) Dismissal Due to Failure. The Court may, without prejudice, 6 dismiss a complaint or strike an answer when:

7 (1) Mail directed to the attorney or pro se party by the Court has been returned to the Court as not deliverable; and 8 (2) The Court fails to receive within 60 days of this return a 9 written communication from the attorney or pro se party indicating a current address. 10 Civ. L.R. 3-11; see also Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 11 with prejudice of pro se prisoner’s complaint for failing to notify court of his change of address 12 despite local rule providing that case be dismissed without prejudice because any lesser sanction 13 would impose affirmative obligation for district courts to track down pro se prisoners). 14 In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows the involuntary dismissal of an 15 action or a claim for “failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or comply with these rules or any order 16 of the court.” A district court may sua sponte dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Link 17 v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962). But such a dismissal should be only when the failure 18 to comply is unreasonable. McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 Plaintiff has not provided his current address for mailing as required by Civil Local Rule 3- 20 11(a). Plaintiff has been given the opportunity and time to explain and correct this failure, but he 21 has failed to do so. It has been more than 60 days since Plaintiff’s mail was first returned as 22 undeliverable due to his address being incorrect, which provides grounds for dismissal under Civil 23 Local Rule 3-11(b). There is also grounds for dismissal of this case under Rule 41(b) because 24 Plaintiff has not complied with the orders to maintain his current address (see ECF No. 6 at 3:8-10 25 (“Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with 26 the clerk headed ‘Notice of Change of Address.’”); ECF No. 24 at 2:8-10), and he has made no 27 contact with the Court to provide a reasonable explanation for this lack of compliance. 1 Accordingly, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-11(b) and Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of 2 Civil Procedure, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling in a new case in which 3 Plaintiff provides and maintains his correct address. 4 The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 6 Dated: January 10, 2025 7 8 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27