United States District Court, D. Maine
JOSEPH B. RIVERS, Plaintiff,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., Defendants
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON SHOW CAUSE ORDER
C. NIVISON U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint (ECF No. 1), but did
not pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. On July 11, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to
pay the $400 filing fee or file a completed in forma pauperis
application. (Order, ECF No. 2.)
subsequently filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis
(ECF No. 3), which request the Court granted. (Order, ECF No.
4.) In the order granting the request, the Court directed
Plaintiff to notify the Court “no later than August 20,
2019, whether he intends to incur the cost of the filing fee
[as set forth in the order] and proceed with this action, or
whether he intends to forego this litigation at this
time.” (Order at 2, ECF No. 4.)
Plaintiff failed to comply with the order, on September 3,
2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why he
had not complied with the Court's order. (Order, ECF No.
5.) In the order, the Court established September 17, 2019,
as the date by which Plaintiff must show cause.
(Id.) The Court advised Plaintiff that if he failed
to show cause, the Court could dismiss the complaint.
(Id.) The order was sent to Plaintiff at the address
Plaintiff provided at the commencement of this matter,
was returned to the Court as undeliverable. (ECF No. 6.)
Plaintiff has not responded to the Order to Show Cause, has
not notified the Court of his intent to proceed, and has not
informed the Court of a new address or contact information, I
recommend the Court dismiss the matter.
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 (a) failed to comply with the Court's
order directing him to notify the Court whether he intends to
proceed, which order was sent to Plaintiff and not returned
to the Court, and (b) failed to show cause in accordance with
the Court's Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff
thus has failed to comply the Court's orders and has
otherwise failed to prosecute his claim.
to the extent Plaintiff is no longer an inmate at the
Cumberland County Jail, Plaintiff has not apprised the court
of his location or contact information. 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
Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's
orders, his failure otherwise to prosecute the matter, and
his failure to inform the Court of his new contact
information, dismissal is warranted.
on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court dismiss
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.
to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the
right to de novo review by the district court and to ...