Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01333/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01333-2/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIO O. VALLE, JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

850 BRYANT STREET CJ2 7TH

FLOOR MEDICAL/MENTAL

HEALTH,

Defendant. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

No. C 07-1333 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Julio O. Valle, proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action

while he was incarcerated at the San Francisco County Jail. (Docket No. 1.) In an order

filed June 11, 2007, the Court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket

No. 6.) In a separate order filed June 11, 2007, the Court conducted a preliminary screening

of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and concluded that plaintiff’s allegations

of inadequate medical and mental health care did not state a claim for deliberate indifference

to his serious medical needs; the Court dismissed the complaint, and granted plaintiff leave to

cure the pleading deficiencies by filing an amended complaint within thirty days. 

Additionally, the Court, in its order of dismissal, made clear to plaintiff that his failure to file

an amended complaint within the prescribed time would result in dismissal of the action. 

Nine days later, on June 20, 2007, the copies of the orders the Clerk of the Court had sent to

plaintiff were returned as undeliverable (Docket No. 9), as was a notice the Clerk of the

Case 3:07-cv-01333-MMC Document 10 Filed 08/21/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Court had sent to plaintiff, explaining electronic filing requirements in cases where one of the

parties is unrepresented (Docket No. 8).

Pursuant to the Civil Local Rules of this district, “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.” See Civ. L.

R. 3-11(a). Where mail directed to such party “has been returned to the Court as not

deliverable” and “the Court fails to receive within 60 days of this return a written

communication from . . . the pro se party indicating a current address,” the Court “may

dismiss the complaint without prejudice.” See Civ. L.R. 3-11(b). 

More than sixty days have passed since the Court issued its order of dismissal with

leave to amend and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or updated his address. 

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. 

The Clerk shall close the file.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 21, 2007 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-01333-MMC Document 10 Filed 08/21/07 Page 2 of 2