Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-03700/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-03700-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID HARRY BRANNON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 02-3700 SBA (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff DAVID HARRY BRANNON, a patient at Atascadero State Hospital, confined

pursuant to California's Sexually Violent Predator Act, filed this action on July 31, 2002. The Court

granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on November 14, 2002. On December 12,

2002, he filed a first amended complaint. On September 25, 2003, the Court granted Plaintiff's

motion for reimbursement of filing fees. On November 13, 2003, Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Clerk

of the Court inquiring about the status of his reimbursement check. Since then, Plaintiff has not

communicated with the Court. 

In an Order dated June 3, 2005, the Court directed Plaintiff to inform the Court of his current

address and of his continued intent to prosecute this action. The Court informed Plaintiff that if he

failed to do so within thirty days, this action would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to

prosecute. The Order sent to Plaintiff at Atascadero State Hospital was returned as undeliverable on

June 20, 2005. 

Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11 an attorney or 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 60 days of this return a written communication from the attorney or pro se party

indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b).

Case 4:02-cv-03700-SBA Document 23 Filed 08/29/05 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

It has now been more than sixty days since the Court's Order Directing Plaintiff to Show

Continued Intent to Prosecute this Action was returned as undeliverable. The Court has not

received a notice from Plaintiff of a new address. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without

prejudice. See L.R. 3-11(b). The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:8/29/05

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cv-03700-SBA Document 23 Filed 08/29/05 Page 2 of 2