Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se. On December 31, 2008, plaintiff filed a signed consent to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). By order filed January 28, 2009, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. The copy of the January 28, 2009 order served on plaintiff was returned undelivered by the United States Postal Service. Accordingly, on February 19, 2009, this action was dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. Judgment was entered on the same day.
On February 27, 2009, plaintiff filed a request to reopen the case. By order filed March 11, 2009, plaintiff was granted a period of thirty days in which to file a proposed amended complaint and informed that failure to do so would result in the denial of plaintiff's request to reopen the action. On March 16, 2009, plaintiff filed a proposed amended complaint.
By order filed August 12, 2009, the court found that the proposed amended complaint suffered from the same defects as the original complaint and denied without prejudice plaintiff's request to reopen this action. A copy of that order was served on plaintiff at an address in West Sacramento, California.
On September 16, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion to reopen this action. Plaintiff seeks advice about what is required to reopen this action, and he includes a change of address to Caldwell, Idaho. Plaintiff's September 16, 2009 motion does not meet the requirements for consideration of a motion to reopen this action set forth in the court's August 12, 2009 order and it appears that plaintiff may not have received that order.*fn1
Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's September 16, 2009 motion to reopen is denied; and
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the court's August 12, 2009 order together with a copy of this order on plaintiff at the address on ...