Van Fleet v. Delander et al

Filing 32

ORDER WITHDRAWING 28 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE that case be dismissed. The Recommendation is hereby deemed WITHDRAWN. By Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 12/4/15. (nywlc1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00074-REB-NYW
DERIC VAN FLEET,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. TUPPER,
Defendant.

ORDER WITHDRAWING RECOMMENDATION
Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang
This civil action is before the court sua sponte. On July 13, 2015, this court issued a
Recommendation that this case be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution, failure to
comply with an order of the court, and failure to comply with a Local Rule of this District.
[#28]. Specifically, Plaintiff Deric Van Fleet, who is proceeding pro se, had failed to update his
mailing address with the court in contravention of D.C.COLO.LAttyR 5(c) and a court Order
dated April 30, 2015 [#21], and had failed to respond to an Order to Show Cause dated June 30,
2015 as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply
with a court order. This Recommendation was returned to the court on July 17, 2015 as
undeliverable to the address provided.

[#30]. The Recommendation is pending before the

Honorable Robert E. Blackburn.
At the time Plaintiff initiated this action, he was in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections and incarcerated at Sterling Correctional Facility in Sterling,

Colorado. Plaintiff was paroled during the pendency of this action and failed to provide a new
address to the court. See [#20]. On August 3, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a Letter with an updated
mailing address. [#31]. In the Letter, Plaintiff represents that his case manager was “supposed
to mail me my legal documents and I haven’t received any for the past 4 months,” asks for the
status of this case, and expresses his interest in pursuing the sole remaining claim in this matter.
[Id.; see also #17].
This court interprets a pro se litigant’s filings liberally.

See Hall v. Bellmon,

Accordingly, this court interprets Plaintiff’s Letter [#31] as a response to the Order to Show
Cause [#22] that Plaintiff was relying upon his case manager to forward his legal documents, that
he has not received any legal documents, and that he wishes to continue to pursue the sole
remaining claim in this matter.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
(1)

The court’s Order to Show Cause [#22] is DISCHARGED; and

(2)

The Recommendation to Dismiss [#28] is hereby WITHDRAWN.

Plaintiff is, however, specifically advised that it is his obligation to keep the court
apprised of his contact address, and failure to do so may lead to sanctions, up to an including a
Recommendation that this action should be dismissed.

DATED: December 4, 2015

BY THE COURT:

s/Nina Y. Wang__________
United States Magistrate Judge

2