Stoddard v. The USC Police
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:24-cv-08269
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Stoddard v. The USC Police, Judge Corley ordered Stoddard to provide a valid address or explain by February 21, 2025, why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice.
Clinton Harry Stoddard, who was required to update his mailing address or explain why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
In Stoddard v. The USC Police, Clinton Harry Stoddard filed a civil case without a lawyer while he was an inmate in Salem, Oregon.
The court mailed several notices to the address Stoddard provided, but the mail was returned as undeliverable. Stoddard had not given the court a new address.
Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley ordered Stoddard to provide a valid mailing address and any necessary identification number by February 21, 2025, or explain why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice. The court did not dismiss the case in this order.
The detailed version
- Stoddard v. The USC Police · No. 3:24-cv-08269
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Jan. 14, 2025
Background
Clinton Harry Stoddard filed this civil action without an attorney while he was an inmate in Salem, Oregon. The court mailed notices concerning filing a complaint, paying the filing fee or submitting a completed application to proceed without paying the fee, and the assignment of a magistrate judge to the address Stoddard provided.
The postal service returned those notices as undeliverable on December 23, 2024. The court also mailed an order reassigning the case to the district judge, and that order was returned as undeliverable on January 6, 2025. Stoddard had not provided the court with a new address.
Court’s Order
Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 3-11 requires a party proceeding without a lawyer to promptly file a notice of any address change. The rule allows the court to dismiss a complaint without prejudice when court mail is returned as undeliverable and the party does not provide a current address.
The court ordered Stoddard, by February 21, 2025, to do one of two things: provide a current valid mailing address and any identification number needed to receive mail, or show cause—explain why—the case should not be dismissed without prejudice. The court stated that failing to meet this requirement may result in dismissal without prejudice. This order did not itself dismiss the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.