govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-4_25-cv-09802-0

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 
 
JEVARIEN ZY’MELL DUNLAP, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 
Defendant. 
 

 
ORDER DISMISSING CASE 
Re: Dkt. No. 4 
 
 
Pro se plaintiff Jevarien Zy’mell Dunlap filed this action against the United States 
Department of State. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”) at 1. Plaintiff alleged that after submitting an 
application for a passport, Defendant sought more information so that it could duly process his 
application, and had not granted him a passport by the time he filed his complaint. See id. 
Plaintiff asserted that Defendant’s failure to process his passport violated his constitutional right to 
international travel. Id. 
Concurrent with his complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 
The Court therefore screened Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2). See Dkt. No. 4. 
As the Court explained in that order, Plaintiff’s “claim ‘lacks a cognizable legal theory or 
sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.’” Id. at 3 (quoting Mendiondo v. Centinela 
Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008)). On January 29, 2026, the Court dismissed 
the case with leave to amend and instructed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by March 2, 
2026, or else pay the filing fees. See Dkt. No. 4. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by 
March 2, 2026, and has not filed one to date. Mail sent to Plaintiff, including the Court’s January 
29 order, has been returned as undeliverable. See Dkt. Nos. 6, 7. It is therefore unclear if Plaintiff 
ever received the order directing him to file an amended complaint. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has an 

 
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 
obligation to maintain his address on file with the Court. See L.R. 3-11. He has not done so, and 
this alone is a basis to dismiss the complaint. See Civil L.R. 3-11(b). Accordingly, for this reason 
and for the reasons stated in its January 29 order, the Court DISMISSES this case without 
prejudice. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff, and 
to close the case. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: 
______________________________________ 
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 
United States District Judge 
June 18, 2026

Passage view · GavelSight