Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04130/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04130-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott B. Merriman
Plaintiff
Jakob Neuman
Defendant
Gary Soria
Defendant
State of California Highway Patrol
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

SCOTT B. MERRIMAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

OFFICER JAKOB NEUMAN, SGT. GARY SORIA,

AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY 

PATROL, 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 14-CV-4130 YGR 

ORDER TO PROVIDE SERVICE INFORMATION 

Pro se Plaintiff Scott B. Merriman filed the present lawsuit on September 12, 2014, which 

was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas. The Clerk of the Court served two 

notices on Merriman requesting that he state his consent or declination to proceed before a 

magistrate judge. Merriman filed no response. Thereafter, on January 6, 2015, Magistrate Judge 

Vadas granted Merriman’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, order the United States Marshal to 

serve defendants with the summons and complaint, and the requested the Clerk of the Court to 

reassign the matter to an Article III judge. (Dkt. No. 7.) That same date, the Clerk also sent a 

request to Merriman to provide the addresses of the defendants so as to ensure proper service of the 

summons and complaint. (Dkt. No. 8.) 

Case 4:14-cv-04130-YGR Document 10 Filed 04/28/15 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 

It is the responsibility of the plaintiff to provide sufficient information to ensure prosecution 

of his action. To date, Merriman has not responded, provided the addresses of each of the defendants 

for service, or filed any other documents in the instant matter. The Court therefore ORDERS that: 

Merriman shall file, no later than May 15, 2015, either: (1) a statement listing the names and 

addresses of the defendants to be served; or (2) a motion for additional time explaining the reasons 

why such information cannot be provided. 

Should Merriman fail to comply with this deadline, this action will be dismissed against 

all defendants without prejudice for failure to serve and prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

 The Court further notes that Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address 

and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Pursuant to Northern District Local 

Rule 3-11 a party proceeding pro se whose address changes while an action is pending must 

promptly file a notice of change of address specifying the new address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court 

may dismiss without prejudice a complaint when mail directed to the pro se party by the Court has 

been returned to the Court as not deliverable, and the Court does not receive, within sixty days of 

such a return, any written communication from the pro se party indicating a current address. See

L.R. 3-11(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: April 28, 2015 

___________________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:14-cv-04130-YGR Document 10 Filed 04/28/15 Page 2 of 2