Bennett v. Social Security Administration
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:24-cv-06492
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
David Bennett v. Project 90 was dismissed without prejudice for failure to maintain a current address, Judge Corley ruled.
David Bennett's case was dismissed without prejudice, and the file was closed. The opinion states that refiling in a new case is possible if he provides and maintains a correct address.
What happened
David Bennett, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a civil action against several state and federal officials and agencies. Mail sent to the address he provided was returned as undeliverable.
The court ordered Bennett to provide a current mailing address, explain why the case should not be dismissed, and either pay the filing fee or explain why he should be allowed to proceed without paying it. The order was also returned, and Bennett did not provide an address or otherwise contact the court.
The court dismissed David Bennett v. Project 90 without prejudice under the court's local rule on returned mail, meaning the case could be refiled in a new case with a correct address. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the file.
The detailed version
- Bennett v. Social Security Administration · No. 3:24-cv-06492
- Jacquelyn Corley
- July 16, 2025
Background
David Bennett, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, filed this civil action against several state and federal officials and agencies. The opinion's caption identifies Project 90 and other defendants.
On April 28, 2025, mail was returned to the court as undeliverable at the address Bennett had provided in his initial filing. The court then ordered Bennett to provide a current valid mailing address and any identification number needed to receive mail, and to explain why the case should not be dismissed under Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 3-11(b). The court also required him to pay the filing fee or explain why permission to proceed without paying it should be granted. The deadline was July 1, 2025.
The court mailed that order both to the address Bennett originally provided and to the Yolo County Jail, which was the return address on his last filing. The postal service returned the order as undeliverable on June 24, 2025. Bennett did not provide a current address or otherwise communicate with the court.
Rule and Analysis
Civil Local Rule 3-11(a) requires a party proceeding without an attorney to promptly file a notice of any address change and provide the new address. Under Rule 3-11(b), the court may dismiss a complaint without prejudice when court mail is returned as undeliverable and the court receives no written communication stating a current address within 60 days of the returned mail.
The court found that Bennett had not provided his current mailing address as required. It also found that he had been given an opportunity and time to correct the problem, but had not done so, and that more than 60 days had passed since his mail was first returned as undeliverable.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case without prejudice under Civil Local Rule 3-11(b), allowing refiling in a new case if Bennett provides and maintains a correct address. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ordered the clerk to enter judgment and close the file.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.