Doe v. County of Alameda et al

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
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-02032-PHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
FAILURE TO PROVIDE CURRENT
ADDRESS
Re: Dkts. 10, 13
On March 9, 2026, Plaintiff John Doe, who is representing himself pro se, filed the
Complaint in this action against Defendants the County of Alameda, Alameda Health System,
Deputy Serramonte, Deputy Cortez, Deputy Nano, Deputy Van Less, Deputy Martinez, Deputy
Newberry, and Nurse A. Layala (collectively, “Defendants”). 	[Dkt. 1]. 	Because the case was
initially assigned to the undersigned, on May 13, 2026, the Court mailed a notice re: consent or
declination of Magistrate Judge jurisdiction (pursuant to Civil Local Rule 73-1(a)(1)) to Plaintiff’s
address of record. [Dkt. 8]. The notice was returned as undeliverable on May 27, 2026. [Dkt. 10].
On June 24, 2026, the Court mailed a second notice re: consent to Plaintiff’s address of record.
[Dkt. 11]. The notice was returned as undeliverable on July 17, 2026. [Dkt. 13].
The Court’s Civil Local Rules require that an attorney or a pro se party must keep the Court
informed of their current address. Civil L.R. 3-11(a). “The Court may, without prejudice, dismiss
a complaint or strike an answer 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.” Civil L.R 3-11(b). The Ninth Circuit has held that under such circumstances, dismissal
Case 3:26-cv-02032-PHK Document 15 Filed 10/14/26 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
without prejudice is appropriate. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming
dismissal of action pursuant to a civil local rule conferring discretion on the court to dismiss a pro
se plaintiff’s action if mail is returned as undeliverable and the pro se plaintiff fails to contact the
court within 60 days thereafter). The Ninth Circuit concluded that “[r]equiring any additional notice
in the unique circumstances presented by a pro se litigant’s failure to advise the district court of a
change in his address is unworkable.” Id.
Mail delivered to Plaintiff’s address of record was first returned as undeliverable on May
27, 2026. [Dkt 10]. Mail sent to Plaintiff’s address of record was returned as undeliverable again
on July 17, 2026. [Dkt. 13]. More than 60 days have passed since the original undeliverable mail
was returned. Indeed, more than double that length of time has passed, and the Court has still not
received a written communication updating Plaintiff’s address. Indeed, since the date of the filing
of the Complaint in this action (March 9, 2026), Plaintiff has filed nothing on the docket at all. More
than sixty days have now passed since the last piece of mail sent to Plaintiff’s last known address
of record was returned as undeliverable, again without any contact or communication from Plaintiff.
Accordingly for all the reasons discussed herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	By no later than October 30, 2026, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a written response to
this Order in which he shall Show Cause and explain why the Court should not dismiss
this case without prejudice for failure to comply with the Local Rules.
2. 	Plaintiff is admonished and warned that failure to timely respond to this Order to Show
Cause will result in negative consequences for Plaintiff’s case as discussed herein.
3. 	The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail this Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff at his address
of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 9, 2026
PETER H. KANG
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:26-cv-02032-PHK Document 15 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 2