Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 22, 2023

Mullin v. Santa Clara County

Judge
Martinez-Olguin
Docket
3:23-cv-04399
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Mullin v. Santa Clara County, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed Mullin’s complaint without prejudice because he failed to provide a current address.

Who this affects

Tyghe James Mullin, the self-represented plaintiff, whose complaint was dismissed without prejudice; the order also terminated pending motions and closed the case file.

What happened

Mullin v. Santa Clara County involved a civil-rights lawsuit filed by Tyghe James Mullin, who was representing himself while in custody. The court’s mail to Mullin was returned as undeliverable, and he did not provide the court with a new address or file anything else.

The court’s local rule required a self-represented party to promptly report an address change. Because more than 60 days passed after the returned mail without a new address, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The clerk was directed to end all pending motions and close the case file.

Judge Martinez-Olguin issued the dismissal on December 22, 2023. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Mullin v. Santa Clara County · No. 3:23-cv-04399
Judge
Martinez-Olguin
Date
Dec. 22, 2023

Background

Tyghe James Mullin, who had been held at Elmwood Correctional Facility, filed a self-represented prisoner complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits certain civil-rights claims against state or local actors. The case was reassigned from a magistrate judge to Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin because of Ninth Circuit authority.

On October 13, 2023, mail sent by the court to Mullin was returned as undeliverable. Mullin had not updated his address with the court and had not filed any further pleadings.

Applicable Rule

Northern District of California Local Rule 3-11 requires a self-represented party whose address changes during a case to promptly file a notice stating the new address. Under the rule, the court may dismiss the complaint when court mail is returned as undeliverable and the court does not receive a written communication from the party providing a current address within 60 days.

Ruling

More than 60 days passed after the court’s mail was returned, and the court did not receive a notice from Mullin providing a new address. Judge Martinez-Olguin therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice under Local Rule 3-11. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the file. The order did not reach the merits of Mullin’s claims.

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.