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

D.C., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VALENTINO WALKER,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00719-MEJ 

ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT; 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

RE: DISMISSAL

BACKGROUND

The Court previously dismissed all claims against Defendants City of Antioch and Allan 

Cantando without prejudice. See Order re Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 29. When Plaintiffs failed to 

file an amended complaint by the scheduled deadline for doing so, the Court dismissed with 

prejudice Plaintiffs’ Section 1985 and 1986 claims against Defendant Cantando, dismissed with 

prejudice the negligence claims asserted against Cantando and the City, and reiterated that 

Plaintiffs could pursue their Section 1983 claim against the City after their wrongful death action 

was resolved. See Order Dismissing Certain Defendants, Dkt. No. 31. The Court also ordered 

Plaintiffs to serve Defendant Walker no later than October 25, 2017. Id. When Plaintiffs failed to 

do so, the Court filed and served an Order to Show Cause (OSC) why the case against Walker 

should not be dismissed for failure to serve him within the time required by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(m). See OSC, Dkt. No. 32; see Dkt. No. 32-1 (Proof of Service). On November 13, 

2017, each copy of the OSC that was mailed to the non-minor Plaintiffs was returned to the Court 

as undeliverable. Dkt. No. 33.1 

 

1

The minor parties purport to appear pro se “by and through [their] guardian ad litem Derrick 

Childs”; the Estate of Demarco Childs also purports to appear pro se. See Docket. First, there is 

no evidence in the record that Derrick Childs was appointed as the minors’ guardian ad litem. 

Second, “[a]ny party representing him or herself without an attorney must appear personally and 
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

DISCUSSION

Civil Local Rule 3-11 (Failure to Notify of Address Change) imposes on litigants, 

including parties proceeding pro se, “whose address changes while an action is pending” to 

“promptly file with the Court . . . a Notice of Change of Address specifying the new address.” 

Civil Local Rule 3-11 also empowers the Court to dismiss a complaint without prejudice “when: 

(1) Mail directed to the attorney or 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.” 

On December 4, 2017, the undersigned filed and served an Order re: Change of Address, 

that extended Plaintiffs’ deadline for responding to the OSC, and explained the preceding local 

rules and warned that, “[i]f Plaintiffs do not indicate their current address(es) and respond to 

the OSC by January 15, 2018, the Court shall dismiss the action without prejudice pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and Local 

Rule 3-11.” Dkt. No. 34 (emphasis in original). The copies of that Order that were mailed to 

Jester Childs, Derrick Childs, and Charisse Mahoney were returned as undeliverable. See Dkt. 

Nos. 35-37. 

As of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs have not indicated their current address and have not 

responded to the OSC. See Dkt. And as of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs have not filed a proof 

of service indicating they have served Defendant Walker.

 

may not delegate that duty to any other person who is not a member of the bar of this Court.” Civ. 

L.R. 3-9(a); see also Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (“It is well 

established that the privilege to represent oneself pro se provided by [28 U.S.C.] § 1654 is 

personal to the litigant and does not extend to other parties or entities.”); Kendall v. United States, 

541 F. App’x 781 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[N]on-attorney pro se litigants have no authority to represent 

anyone other than themselves.”). Finally, a corporation or other entity “may appear only through a 

member of the bar of this Court.” Civ. L.R. 3-9(b). Because Derrick Childs could not represent 

them in this action, the Court’s orders do not collaterally estop the minor parties nor the Estate 

from pursuing any claims asserted herein.
3

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

CONCLUSION

The undersigned ORDERS the Clerk of Court to reassign this matter to a district judge2

with the recommendation that the entire action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Civil 

Local Rule 3-11, and in addition, that the claims against Valentino Walker be dismissed without

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, any party may serve and file objections to 

this Report and Recommendation within 14 days after being served.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.

Dated: January 18, 2018

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

 

2

The adult Plaintiffs, the City and Defendant Cantando have consented to the undersigned’s 

jurisdiction. See Dkt. Nos. 7, 16. Defendant Walker has not, and the case therefore must be 

reassigned. Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[A]ll plaintiffs and 

defendants named in the complaint are ‘parties’ within the meaning of § 636(c)(1)—irrespective 

of whether the complaint has been properly served. Section 636(c)(1) also requires consent of all 

parties—not a subset of them—for jurisdiction to vest in the magistrate judge.”).