Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01895/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01895-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.06\Clark01895_dismissal.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND D. CLARK,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

ANDREA MERCADO,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-01895 JW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 10)

On March 10, 2006, plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), defendant removed the action to this

Court as having original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to removal. Defendant

filed a motion asking the court to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Removal appearing proper, the Court granted defendant’s motion to screen the

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

On March 16, 2007, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend

Case 5:06-cv-01895-JW Document 13 Filed 06/07/07 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 Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.06\Clark01895_dismissal.wpd 2

with respect to plaintiff’s claim of denial of access to courts, and plaintiff was given

thirty days to file an amended complaint thereon. Plaintiff was warned to keep the

court informed of any change of address and to comply with the court’s orders in a

timely fashion, and that failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute. A copy

of that order to petitioner was returned as undeliverable on March 28, 2006, and it

was indicated that petitioner was released on parole. 

On May 2, 2007, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case for plaintiff’s

failure to comply with the court’s order, i.e., to keep the court informed of his

change of address. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Because sixty

(60) days have passed since the court’s mail to petitioner was returned as

undeliverable, and the court has received no written communication from petitioner

indicating a current address, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to

Local Rule 3-11(b). 

This order terminates Docket No. 10. The clerk shall close the file. 

DATED: June 7, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-01895-JW Document 13 Filed 06/07/07 Page 2 of 2