Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Daughenbough v. Hennessey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 9, 2009

DARRYL DAUGHENBOUGH, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL HENNESSEY (SHERIFF); ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Susan Illston United States District Judge

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On September 29, 2008, mail was sent to plaintiff at the address he provided to the court and was returned undelivered on October 20, 2008 and marked "NIC," the usual designation for an inmate not in custody. Plaintiff has not provided any address other than the one to which the undeliverable mail was sent. More than sixty days have passed since the mail was returned to the court undelivered. Plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 3-11(a) which requires that a party proceeding pro se must "promptly file with the Court and serve upon all opposing parties a Notice of Change of Address specifying the new address" when his address changes. Local Rule 3-11(b) allows the court to dismiss a complaint without prejudice when mail directed to a pro se party is returned as not deliverable and the pro se party fails to send a current address within sixty days of the return of the undelivered mail For the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed without prejudice because plaintiff failed to keep the court informed of his address in compliance with Local Rule 3-11(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090209

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.