From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pringle v. Jose

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Sep 2, 2021
21-cv-02747-WHO (PR) (N.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2021)

Opinion

21-cv-02747-WHO (PR)

09-02-2021

MATHEW MALIK PRINGLE, Plaintiff, v. DINA JOSE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WILLIAM H. ORRICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Mail sent by the Court to plaintiff was returned as undeliverable more than 60 days ago. Accordingly, this federal civil rights action is DISMISSED (without prejudice) because plaintiff failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-11(b) and because he failed to prosecute this matter, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Because this dismissal is without prejudice, plaintiff may move to reopen the action. Any motion to reopen must be clearly titled as “Motion to Reopen.”

The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of defendants, and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Pringle v. Jose

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Sep 2, 2021
21-cv-02747-WHO (PR) (N.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2021)
Case details for

Pringle v. Jose

Case Details

Full title:MATHEW MALIK PRINGLE, Plaintiff, v. DINA JOSE, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Sep 2, 2021

Citations

21-cv-02747-WHO (PR) (N.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2021)