Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 3, 2020

Rodriguez v. Koenig

Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Docket
4:19-cv-01273
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Rodriguez v. Labahn, Judge Rogers ordered the plaintiff to provide Defendant Martin’s address within 28 days or face dismissal of claims against him without prejudice.

Who this affects

Cesar A. Rodriguez and Defendant Deputy Commissioner James Martin; the order requires Rodriguez to provide Martin’s current address and warns that claims against Martin will be dismissed without prejudice if he does not do so within 28 days.

What happened

In Cesar A. Rodriguez v. Pete Labahn, et al., service had not been completed on Defendant Deputy Commissioner James Martin. The Attorney General’s Office said it represented only Pete Labahn and did not have Martin’s address because he was no longer employed by the Board of Parole Hearings.

The court ordered Rodriguez, who was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, to provide Martin’s current address within 28 days. The order directed Rodriguez to consult the federal discovery rules for guidance in finding the address.

The court warned that all claims against Martin would be dismissed without prejudice if Rodriguez missed the deadline. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued the order; the court did not dismiss those claims at this time.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Rodriguez v. Koenig · No. 4:19-cv-01273
Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Date
Jan. 3, 2020

Background

This order concerns service of the complaint on Defendant Deputy Commissioner James Martin. Service had been ineffective. A letter from Deputy Attorney General C. Hay-Mie Cho stated that the Attorney General’s Office represented only Defendant Pete Labahn. The letter also stated that Martin was no longer employed by the Board of Parole Hearings and that the Board did not have an address for him.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that because Rodriguez was proceeding without paying the filing fee, he was responsible for providing current addresses for the defendants so that service could be completed. Although Rodriguez could rely on the United States Marshal or request that a defendant waive service, the court explained that he could not remain silent after learning of a service problem. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) allows dismissal without prejudice when a defendant is not served within the required period.

Order

The court ordered Rodriguez to provide Martin’s current address no later than 28 days from the date of the order. It directed him to review Rules 26 through 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for guidance on determining Martin’s address. The court stated that if Rodriguez did not provide the address within that deadline, all claims against Martin would be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m). The order did not dismiss the claims at that time.

Judge

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.