Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03319/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03319-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACK EINHEBER,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-3319 PJH

v. ORDER VACATING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Pro se plaintiff Jack Einheber filed this action on June 5, 2007. At the time he filed

the complaint, he also filed a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The

case was reassigned to the undersigned judge on September 28, 2007. On October 1,

2007, the court set an initial case management conference for November 1, 2007. The

order was mailed to plaintiff’s address of record.

On October 2, 2007, the court issued an order denying the IFP request, and

ordering plaintiff to pay the filing fee by November 1, 2007. That order was also mailed to

plaintiff’s address of record. On October 18, 2007, the envelope containing the order

denying the IFP request was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as “undeliverable.” 

On October 26, 2007, plaintiff filed a case management conference statement,

indicating that he had received the order setting the case management conference

statement. He stated that he “has been on the East Coast for several months because of

unresolved . . . serious health issues and pressing family matters.” In addition, he states

Case 4:07-cv-03319-CW Document 10 Filed 10/30/07 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

that “[i]t was his understanding that since he is proceeding in forma pauperis, . . . service

[of defendants] was to be undertaken by the [c]ourt.”

That same day, October 26, 2007, the clerk placed a call to plaintiff at the telephone

number of record, and left a message requesting plaintiff to call the court no later than

October 29, 2007, and provide his correct address of record. As of 9:00 a.m. on October

30, 2007, plaintiff had not done so.

Because the court has denied plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP, plaintiff is

responsible for arranging to have defendants served with the summons and complaint, in

accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Because plaintiff has not yet served

defendants, the court finds that the date for the case management conference must be

VACATED. 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-11, plaintiff is required to promptly notify the court

when and if his address changes. Civ. L.R. 3-11(a). If mail addressed to a pro se plaintiff

is returned to the court as undeliverable, and the court does not 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. Civ. L.R. 3-11(b).

Accordingly, if the court does not receive a current address from plaintiff by

December 17, 2007, the case will be dismissed. Additionally, plaintiff must pay the filing

fee and serve defendants by that date; otherwise, the case will be dismissed on those

grounds as well.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03319-CW Document 10 Filed 10/30/07 Page 2 of 2