Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08194/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08194-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

TOMIKA GARDNER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-08194-SI 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND 

DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 12

On December 16, 2019, pro se Plaintiff Tomika Gardner filed a complaint and application 

to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim granted the application 

to proceed in forma pauperis but ordered a hold on service of the complaint because, upon reviewing 

the complaint, she found the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter. Dkt. No. 4. Pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915, Magistrate Judge Kim permitted plaintiff to file an amended complaint by February 

10, 2020, addressing the deficiencies described in her screening order. Id.

On January 24, 2020, the copy of Magistrate Judge Kim’s screening order that was sent to 

plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. Dkt. No. 5. On March 3, 2020, a second copy of Magistrate 

Judge Kim’s screening order, as well as a notice regarding consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, 

were returned as undeliverable. Dkt. Nos. 8, 9. Magistrate Judge Kim vacated the initial case 

management conference on March 5, 2020 (Dkt. No. 7), and copies of notice of that action were 

returned undeliverable on March 12, 2020, and April 13, 2020, respectively (Dkt. Nos. 10, 11).

On April 16, 2020, Magistrate Judge Kim issued a report and recommendation reassigning 

the action to the instant Court and advising the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to 

Case 3:19-cv-08194-SI Document 15 Filed 05/04/20 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 California

comply with Civil Local Rule 3-11. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-11, “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.” Pursuant to the 

same rule, the Court “may, without prejudice, dismiss a complaint or strike an answer when: (1) 

Mail directed to 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 

[...] pro se party indicating a current address.” Magistrate Judge Kim’s April 16, 2020 order also 

gave plaintiff until April 30, 2020 to file any objections thereto.

The screening order mailed to Plaintiff was first returned as undeliverable on January 24, 

2020. As of March 24, 2020, sixty days later, the Court had not, and still has not, received any 

communication from Plaintiff indicating a current address. Further, no objections were received by 

the Court on or before April 30. 

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the report and recommendation and DISMISSES the 

action WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2020

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-08194-SI Document 15 Filed 05/04/20 Page 2 of 2