Rosso v. Sears et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying 25 Motion to take Judicial Notice. CLERK TO FORWARD a copy of 21 Order to Plaintiff. Signed by Honorable Christy D. Comstock on November 22, 2024.(mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
ROBERT JOSEPH ROSSO
v.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 5:24-CV-05096-TLB-CDC

SERGEANT SARAH SEARS, Washington County Detention Center (WCDC);
CORPORAL JOEL MINOR, WCDC;
CORPORAL DAKOTA POWELL, WCDC;
MISTY WALTON;
JOHN OR JANE DOE, Supervisor, WCDC; and
LT. M. ARNOLD,
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Plaintiff Robert Joseph Rosso, a prisoner, 1 has initiated this pro se civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, generally alleging that excessive force was used against him and
that he was disciplined without proper due process in violation of his constitutional rights while
detained at the Washington County Detention Center (“WCDC”). (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff has
paid the statutory filing fee. This matter is currently before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion. (ECF
No. 25). The Court finds that no response is necessary. This Motion is therefore ripe for the
Court’s consideration.
Plaintiff’s Motion asserts several grounds for relief. First, this Court previously issued an
Order granting in part, and denying in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint, (ECF No. 16),
granting in part and denying in part his Motion to Supplement Complaint, (ECF No. 17), and
denying his Motion to Appoint Counsel, (ECF No. 18).

1

See (ECF No. 21).

This Court

Plaintiff is a federal inmate, currently incarcerated at the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North
Carolina (“FMC-Butner”). (ECF No. 7).
1

subsequently issued a text-only order clarifying the parties’ deadlines for complying with that
order. (ECF No. 22). As relevant here, Plaintiff’s amended complaint was due November 15,
2024. Id.
But Plaintiff asserts in his Motion that he only received the Court’s text-only order, not the
substantive Order on Plaintiff’s Motions.

(ECF No. 25).

Accordingly, the Clerk is

DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a copy of that Order (ECF No. 21).

Further, Plaintiff’s

deadline to submit an amended complaint is now twenty-one (21) days from the date of THIS
order, failing which this matter will be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Second, Plaintiff requests an order staying this action until he is transferred to home
confinement, on or about November 27, 2024. (ECF No. 25). Plaintiff contends that there are
“numerous tapes and documents” he needs from the Defendant. Id. This Court is not persuaded
that a stay is appropriate in this matter. First, discovery in this matter has not yet commenced.
Second, while this Court acknowledges that incarceration can present additional obstacles to
prosecuting a civil case, such as delays with mail delivery, such obstacles can be addressed without
staying the case by extending deadlines, for example, which has been done here. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay these proceedings is DENIED.
Finally, Plaintiff asks the Clerk’s Office to change how his mail is addressed or, at
minimum, to also send his mail to his home address in Hartford, Arkansas. (ECF No. 25, p. 3).
That request is DENIED. Consistent with established court policies and procedures, the Clerk’s
Office will continue to send Plaintiff’s mail to his current address. Should that address change,
Plaintiff is directed to send a notice of change of address within 30 days of any such change, failing
which this matter will be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Should Plaintiff not receive
2

the Court’s mail, his remedy is exactly what he did here: write the Court explaining he did not
receive his mail. The Court will then consider the circumstances and determine whether an
extension of deadlines is appropriate, as it did here.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 22nd day of November 2024.
/s/ Christy Comstock
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3