Opinion
22-cv-01851-AMO (PR)
05-22-2024
GABRIEL D. SIMMONS, Plaintiff, v. M. AVILA, Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN United States District Judge
Plaintiff Gabriel D. Simmons filed the present prisoner complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, representing himself.
On August 4, 2023, the Court granted the parties' request that a settlement conference be scheduled to resolve their disputes and that the case be stayed in anticipation of settlement proceedings. Dkt. 25. However, the parties' attempts to settle this matter were unsuccessful. Dkt. 34. Therefore, on February 23, 2024, the Court reopened the action and thereby lifted the stay. Dkt. 35. The Court also issued a new scheduling order for further proceedings. See id.
On March 4, 2024, Simmons's copy of the Court's February 23, 2024 Order was returned to the Clerk of the Court as undeliverable with the following notation, “RELEASED,” and indicating a date of “2/26/24.” Dkt. 36.
On April 16, 2024, Defendant filed a request to modify the scheduling order because they had not received Simmons's responses to their discovery request. See Dkt. 37; Boiko Decl. ¶¶ 34. Defendant confirmed Simmons was no longer incarcerated. See id. at ¶¶ 5-6. Defendant sent these discovery requests on March 8, 2024. Id. at ¶ 3. Defendant has not been able to successfully contact Simmons using either his email address or any of his phone numbers. Id. at ¶¶ 4-6.
On April 23, 2024, the Court granted Defendant's request to modify the scheduling order and set a new dispositive motion deadline on June 7, 2024. Dkt. 38.
On May 6, 2024, Simmons's copy of the Court's April 23, 2024 Order was returned to the Clerk with similar notations that it was undeliverable because Simmons was “RELEASED.” Dkt. 39. To date, Simmons has not updated his address with the Court or submitted any further pleadings in this case.
Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11 a party proceeding pro se whose address changes while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of address specifying the new address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may dismiss without prejudice a complaint when: (1) mail directed to the pro se party by the Court has been returned to the Court as not deliverable, and (2) the Court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written communication from the pro se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b).
More than sixty days have passed since the mail directed to Simmons by the Court was initially returned as undeliverable on March 4, 2024. The Court has not received a notice from Simmons of a new address. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 3-11 of the Northern District Local Rules.
The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.