Opinion
24-cv-02229-DMR
08-22-2024
LIZBETH PERALTA, Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE, Defendant.
REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT TO DISTRICT JUDGE AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-11(B)
DONNA M. RYU CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Self-represented Plaintiff Lizbeth Peralta filed a complaint, an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and a request for immediate temporary injunction. [Docket Nos. 1, 2, 3.] Since all parties have not consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the court issues this Report and Recommendation and reassigns this case to a district judge for final disposition, with the recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to file a Notice of Change of Address updating Plaintiff's mailing address.
On April 16, 2024, the court mailed the Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines to an address associated with Plaintiff, 391 Ellis Street, San Francisco, CA 94102. [Docket No. 4.] Between April 17 and May 31, 2024, the court mailed five Clerk's Notices re: Consent or Declination to Plaintiff. [Docket Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.] These materials were subsequently returned on June 20, July 9, and July 16, 2024, marked “Return To Sender, Attempted-Not Known, Unable to Forward.” [Docket Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 15.] The courtroom deputy was not able to reach Plaintiff at the telephone number listed in her complaint. On July 12, 2024, the court mailed an order to Plaintiff vacating the initial case management conference. [Docket No. 14.] The order was also returned as undeliverable on August 1, 2024. [Docket No. 16.]
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-11(a), “a party proceeding pro se whose address changes while an action is pending must promptly file with the Court and serve upon all opposing parties a Notice of Change of Address specifying the new address.” Plaintiff has made no appearance in this case since filing her complaint in April 2024.
“The Court may, without prejudice, dismiss a complaint or strike an answer when: (1) Mail directed to the attorney or pro se party by the Court has been returned to the Court as not deliverable; and (2) The Court fails to receive within 60 days of this return a written communication from the attorney or pro se party indicating a current address.” Civ. L.R. 3-11(b). As the Clerk's Notice re: Consent or Declination was returned on June 20, 2024 and Plaintiff has not provided a current address within the required time under Rule 3-11(b), the court finds that dismissal is appropriate. Accordingly, the court recommends that Plaintiff's action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-11(b). The Clerk is directed to reassign this case to a district judge. Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 72-2.
The court refers Plaintiff to the section “Representing Yourself' on the Court's website, located at https://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/, as well as the Court's Legal Help Centers for unrepresented parties. Parties may schedule an appointment by calling 415-782-8982 or emailing fedpro@sfbar.org.
IT IS SO ORDERED.