United States District Court, D. Maine
AMENDED  RECOMMENDED DECISION BASED ON
PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint and an
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF Nos.
1, 2.) The Court granted the motion on April 21, 2017 (ECF
No. 3), and ordered Plaintiff to notify the Court no later
than May 12, 2017, of his intent to proceed with this action
and to acknowledge in his notice that he understands his
obligation to pay the complete filing fee as the requisite
funds become available to him. Through the order, the Court
informed Plaintiff that a failure to comply with the order
would result in a dismissal recommendation. On May 10, 2017,
the Court's mailing of its Order was returned marked by
the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable: “RTS not
Plaintiff failed to comply with the order, on June 1, 2017,
the Court issued an Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 5.) In the
Show Cause Order, the Court established June 15, 2017, as the
date by which Plaintiff was to show cause in writing as to
why he failed to comply with the Court's order requiring
that he notify the Court of his intent to proceed with this
action. The Court again advised Plaintiff that if he failed
to show cause, his complaint could be dismissed. Plaintiff
has not responded to the Show Cause Order, and has not
otherwise communicated with the Court. To date, the mailing
of the Order to Show Cause has not been returned by the U.S.
Postal Service. As explained below, I recommend the Court
dismiss the matter without prejudice.
district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its
own docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte for any of the
reasons prescribed in Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).”
Cintron-Lorenzo v. Dep't de Asumtos del
Consumidor, 312 F.3d 522, 526 (1st Cir. 2002) (citing
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 - 31
(1962)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the
Court to dismiss an action for a party's failure to
prosecute and failure to comply with the Court's orders.
Here, Plaintiff has failed to comply (a) with the Court's
April 24, 2017, Order that required Plaintiff to notify the
Court of Plaintiff's intent to proceed (ECF No. 3), and
(b) with the Court's Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 5).
Plaintiff thus has not only failed to comply with two of the
Court's orders, but insofar as he has not notified the
Court of his intent to proceed, Plaintiff has also failed to
prosecute his claim.
fact that Plaintiff might have relocated and not received all
of the Court's orders does not absolve him of his
obligation to prosecute this action. Parties to litigation
have a duty to inquire periodically regarding the status of
the litigation and to keep the court informed of their
current address and contact information. United States v.
Guerrero, 302 Fed. App'x 769, 771 (10th Cir. 2008);
Lewis v. Hardy, 248 Fed. App'x 589, 593 (5th
Cir. 2007) (per curiam); Carvel v. Durst, No.
1:09-cv-06733, 2014 WL 787829, at *1 n.5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25,
2014); Am. Arbitration Ass'n, Inc. v. Defonseca,
No. 1:93-cv-02424, 1997 WL 102495, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6,
1997) (“[A] litigant's obligation to promptly
inform the Court and the opposing party of an address change
is a matter of common sense, not legal
sophistication.”); see also Information for
Pro Se Parties, Responsibilities of the Pro Se Litigant
¶ 6: “You must keep the Court and the other party
advised of any change of your address or telephone number.
… Failing to do so may result in the imposition of
sanctions, which could include the dismissal of your
case.” (United States District Court, District of Maine
handout for pro se litigants, also available online).
Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's
orders, his failure otherwise to prosecute the action, and
his lack of communication with the Court following the filing
of the complaint and Application for Leave to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis on April 17, 2017 (ECF No. 2), dismissal
is warranted. Because Plaintiff evidently did not receive the
Order granting his Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis and might not have received the Order to Show
Cause, and because the complaint has not been served on the
defendants, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate.
on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court dismiss
Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice.
may file objections to those specified portions of a
magistrate judge's report or proposed findings or
recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the
district court is sought, together with a supporting
memorandum, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a
copy thereof. A responsive memorandum shall be filed within
fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection.
to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the
right to de novo review by the district court and to
appeal the district court's order.
 Following the issuance of the original
recommended decision, I realized that inadvertently, I did
not include an explicit recommendation. This amended
recommended decision is filed to ...