Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04874/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04874-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL JOHN ZEISZLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN MOODY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04874-YGR (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

SHOW CONTINUED INTENT TO 

PROSECUTE THIS ACTION AND TO 

PROVIDE COURT WITH CURRENT 

ADDRESS; AND GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME

Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 1. 

Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, which is the operative complaint in this action. Dkt. 6. 

The Court has since reviewed the amended complaint, which alleged violations of his 

constitutional rights against San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department officials stemming from 

incidents of excessive force in 2014, and based on the conditions of his confinement at San Mateo 

County’s Maguire Correctional Facility. The Court then issued an Order of Partial Dismissal and 

Service. Dkt. 23.

On May 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address, and informed the Court that 

he had been transferred to California State Prison - Solano. Dkt. 18. Plaintiff’s last 

communication with the Court was on September 1, 2015, during which he submitted exhibits for 

the Court to consider in connection with the instant matter. Dkt. 21.

Clerk’s Office staff has recently been informed that Plaintiff was released from prison on 

February 2, 2016. However, to date, Plaintiff has not provided the Court with an updated address.

Defendants’ attorney has also provided proof from the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation that Plaintiff has been paroled as of February 2, 2016. Dkt. 39 at 

6-7. Defendants have also filed a request for an extension of time to file their motion for summary 

judgment. Dkt. 38.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court may sua sponte dismiss 

an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 

Case 4:14-cv-04874-YGR Document 40 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of Californi

a

U.S. 626, 633 (1962); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). But such a dismissal 

should only be ordered when the failure to comply is unreasonable. See id. A district court should 

afford the litigant prior notice of its intention to dismiss. See Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 

833 F.2d 128, 133 (9th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11, a party 

proceeding pro se whose address changes while an action is pending must promptly file and serve 

upon all opposing parties a notice of change of address specifying the new address. See L.R. 3-

11(a). The Court may, without prejudice, dismiss a complaint or strike an answer when: (1) mail 

directed to the attorney or 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 attorney or pro se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b).

In the instant case, it has been almost eight months since Plaintiff has communicated with 

the Court. Furthermore, in its Order of Partial Dismissal and Service, the Court instructed 

Plaintiff that it was his “responsibility to prosecute this case” and that he “must keep the Court 

informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion.” 

Dkt. 23 at 18. As mentioned above, the Court has been informed that Plaintiff has been released 

from prison, but he has not updated his address. Accordingly, it is in the interests of justice and 

judicial efficiency for the Court to establish Plaintiff's current address and whether he intends to 

continue to prosecute this action. 

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff shall file with the Court a notice of his current address 

and his continued intent to prosecute no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this 

Order. Failure to timely do so shall result in dismissal of this action without prejudice under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Malone, 833 F.2d at 133.

At this time, the Court also GRANTS Defendants an extension of time to file their motion 

for summary judgment up to and including ninety (90) days from the date of this Order. Dkt. 38. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

May 6, 2016

Case 4:14-cv-04874-YGR Document 40 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 2