Thomas v. Zofra et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 3/26/2018. (PSM)

FILED
2018 Mar-26 PM 02:08
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
JAMES EARL THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ZYNNIA ZOFRA, in her individual
and official capacity, and
BEVERLY WHITE, in her individual
and official capacity.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

7:17-cv-00719-LSC

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
Before the Court is Plaintiff, James Earl Thomas’ (“Thomas” or
“Plaintiff”) Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. It has come to the
Court’s attention that Plaintiff was once in a Psychiatry Center, but is no longer
residing there. The Court attempted delivery of its October 6th, 2017,
Memorandum of Opinion and Order at his address of record, however, it was
returned as undeliverable on December 12, 2017. (Doc. 10.) The notation on the
returned mail states, “Refuse Return to Sender Recipient not at this Address.” (Id.
at 1.)

Page 1 of 3

In the last section of Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, he signed language which
reads, “I agree to provide the Clerk’s Office with any changes to my address where
case-related papers may be served. I understand that my failure to keep a current
address on file with the Clerk’s office may result in the dismissal of my case.”
(Doc. 1 at 13.)
A plaintiff’s failure to supply the Court with an updated address subjects the
action to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b) (providing for dismissal where “the plaintiff fails to prosecute”); see also Link
v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (interpreting Rule 41(b) not to
restrict the court's inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte an action for lack of
prosecution); World Thrust Films, Inc. v. Int’l Family Entm’t, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454,
1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102
(11th Cir. 1989); White v. City of Grand Rapids, 34 F. App’x 210, 211 (6th Cir.
2002) (finding pro se prisoner’s complaint “was subject to dismissal for want of
prosecution because he failed to keep the district court apprised of his current
address”).
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s claims are due to be DISMISSED
without PREJUDICE for want of prosecution. Additionally, his Motion for Leave

Page 2 of 3

to Proceed in forma pauperis is due to be GRANTED. An Order consistent with this
Memorandum of Opinion will be entered contemporaneously herewith.
DONE AND ORDERED ON MARCH 26, 2018.

_____________________________
L. SCOTT COOGLER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
190685

Page 3 of 3