Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff John Doe, who represents himself, filed a complaint in the Northern District of California on March 9, 2026. The defendants are the County of Alameda, Alameda Health System, several individual deputies, and a nurse. The order does not describe the claims or address their merits.
Because the case was initially assigned to the magistrate judge who signed this order, the Court mailed Plaintiff a notice on May 13, 2026, about consenting to or declining magistrate judge jurisdiction under Civil Local Rule 73-1(a)(1). The notice was returned as undeliverable on May 27, 2026. The Court mailed a second consent notice on June 24, 2026, and it was returned as undeliverable on July 17, 2026. According to the Court, Plaintiff has filed nothing on the docket since the complaint and has not sent any written communication providing a current address. More than twice the sixty-day period has now elapsed since the first returned mail.
The Court’s Holding
This is an order to show cause, not a dismissal. The Court did not dismiss the case and entered no judgment. It ordered Plaintiff to file a written response by October 30, 2026, explaining why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Local Rules.
The Court's reasoning rests on Civil Local Rule 3-11. Subsection (a) requires an attorney or pro se party to keep the Court informed of a current address. Subsection (b) provides that the Court may, without prejudice, dismiss a complaint or strike an answer when mail directed to the party has been returned as not deliverable and the Court receives no written communication indicating a current address within 60 days of the return. The Court observed that the first mail was returned on May 27, 2026, that well over 60 days have passed, and that Plaintiff has made no contact.
The Court relied on Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988), which affirmed dismissal under a similar local rule and concluded that requiring additional notice to a pro se litigant who fails to report an address change is unworkable. The Court admonished Plaintiff that failing to respond on time will have negative consequences for his case, as discussed in the order, and directed the Clerk to mail the order to his address of record. The order does not specify what those consequences will be beyond the dismissal without prejudice it identifies.
Key Takeaways
- A pro se party in the Northern District of California must keep the Court informed of a current address under Civil Local Rule 3-11(a), and mail returned as undeliverable starts a 60-day clock.
- Under Rule 3-11(b), the Court may dismiss a complaint without prejudice if it receives no written communication with a current address within 60 days after mail is returned.
- Here the Court gave Plaintiff one more chance, setting an October 30, 2026 deadline to show cause, even though Carey v. King describes extra notice as unworkable in this setting.
- Nothing has been decided on the merits, and any dismissal that follows would be framed as without prejudice rather than a ruling on the claims.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a routine local rule operates against a self-represented plaintiff who disappears after filing. Rule 3-11 puts the burden of keeping an address current on the litigant, and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Carey v. King lets district courts act without chasing the party through further notices. Issuing a show-cause order before dismissal nonetheless gives Plaintiff a final opportunity to explain the silence and to supply an address, which helps protect against an unwarranted loss of the case. For pro se litigants, the practical lesson is to file a written change of address promptly, since the Court treats silence after returned mail as grounds for possible dismissal.
The order is an unreported district court ruling and carries no precedential weight; it applies existing authority rather than making new law. What remains open is whether Plaintiff responds by October 30, 2026, and, if he does not, whether the Court dismisses the case without prejudice. The order does not address whether a refiled action would face timing obstacles.