Opinion
2:22-cv-1386 DAD DB P
06-05-2023
JONATHAN CHRISTOPHER COFFER, Plaintiff, v. GRIGSBY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES JUDGE.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 4, 2022. Plaintiff alleged defendants failed to take appropriate action when plaintiff attempted suicide in 2021. On September 27, 2022, plaintiff was granted an extension of time of 30 days to either pay the required filing fee or to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On October 13, 2002, plaintiff filed a request for copies in which plaintiff stated he had lost paperwork in a facility transfer and was still “in need of more time.” The Clerk of the Court sent a one-time courtesy response with copies of the new case documents that were previously issued in this case and a copy of the title page of the complaint.
Starting on October 7, 2022, the post office returned to the court all documents served on plaintiff at Salinas Valley State Prison, the only address plaintiff has provided to the court. Local Rule 183(b) requires that a party appearing pro se inform the court of any address change. If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff is “returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.”
When plaintiff did not submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, pay the filing fee, or otherwise respond to the court's order, on January 30, 2023, this court recommended this action be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff's failure to prosecute. On February 27, the district judge adopted that recommendation and closed this case.
On June 1, 2023, plaintiff filed a “notice” in which he appears to seek to reopen this case. Plaintiff states that eighth months ago he was transferred to the Santa Rita County Jail without his legal property. He contends that he had “no way” to write the court without that property.
Initially this court notes that plaintiff demonstrated he had a way to contact the court after he was transferred. Plaintiff's October 13, 2022 request for copies stated that he required them because he had been transferred. Plaintiff did not, however, provide the court with a new address and has not done so since that time.
This case was dismissed without prejudice. That means plaintiff may refile his complaint and open a new case. Plaintiff has not shown any basis to reopen the present case or that he will suffer any prejudice if the court does not do so. This court will not consider any further filings plaintiff makes in the present case.
Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff seeks to reopen the present case, that request is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.