Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04258/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04258-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIBBOLETH E. ADELL, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF VICKERS, food service cook;

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-4258 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED 

Plaintiff filed this action on August 20, 2007, complaining about the food service at the

Contra Costa County Jail. The court issued an order of service on January 19, 2008. The copy

of the order of service mailed to plaintiff came back undelivered with a mark on the envelope

indicating that plaintiff was no longer in custody at the county jail. Plaintiff has not filed a

notice of change of address.

Defendants have filed an amended motion for an extension of time to file their dispositive

motion. In their amended motion (docket # 17), they explain that they may have located

plaintiff, despite his failure to provide a notice of change of address. Defendants learned that

plaintiff might be at the Delaney Street program in San Francisco, so they mailed a document

to him at that address. The document was returned undelivered with a notation that plaintiff was

in the Delaney Street program in Los Angeles. Defendants then sent the document to plaintiff

at the Delaney Street program in Los Angeles. On March 18, 2008, defense counsel received

a telephone call from Jonathan Hill at the Delaney Street Foundation in Los Angeles; Hill told

defense counsel that plaintiff was in the program but would not be able to participate in any

Case 3:07-cv-04258-SI Document 19 Filed 04/01/08 Page 1 of 3
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

litigation as long as he was in the program. Hill also told counsel that plaintiff understood the

terms of his treatment and was scheduled for release on November 13, 2009. 

If the information provided by Hill is correct, there will be an unacceptable and

unreasonable delay in the prosecution of this action. By the time plaintiff is released from the

Delaney Street program, this case will be over two years old and absolutely no progress (other

than the court-ordered service of process) will have been made. While plaintiff's participation

in the Delancey Street program is important to him, the court does not want to keep an

abandoned lawsuit on its docket and defendants likely do not want to have unresolved litigation

looming for at least two years. Furthermore, plaintiff's failure to file a notice of change of

address suggests that he may have lost interest in prosecuting this action now that he is no longer

in the county jail. But for defense counsel's efforts, the court would have no idea where plaintiff

was located. Accordingly, the court will require plaintiff to show cause why this action should

not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to keep the court informed of his current

address.

TO PLAINTIFF, SIBBOLETH E. ADELL, JR.: You are hereby ordered to show cause

why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to keep the court

informed of your current address. You must file, and serve on defense counsel, a written

response no later than May 2, 2008. In your response, you should explain why you have not

provided the court with a current address for service of documents, explain how and when you

plan to prosecute this action and explain how and when you will make yourself available for the

deposition defendants want to conduct. Failure to file and serve a written response by the

deadline will result in the dismissal of this action.

Defendants' motion to extend the deadlines for the filing of a dispositive motion is

GRANTED. (Docket # 17.) The briefing schedule for dispositive motions is VACATED. The

court will wait for the response to the order to show cause to determine whether and when to set

a briefing schedule.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-04258-SI Document 19 Filed 04/01/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

The clerk shall mail a copy of this order to plaintiff at the following two addresses: (1)

2456 Frances Street, Oakland, CA 94601, (2) c/o Delaney Street Program, 400 North Vermont,

Los Angeles, CA 90004.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2008 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04258-SI Document 19 Filed 04/01/08 Page 3 of 3