Guindon v. Connecticut Managed Health Care et al

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 2/27/2015. (Shin, D.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

BRIAN GUINDON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:14CV396(VAB)

CONNECTICUT MANAGED
HEALTH CARE, ET AL.,
Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The plaintiff, Brian Guindon, commenced this action by filing a Complaint naming
Connecticut Managed Health Care, Drs. Lawlor, O’Halloran, and Ruiz, Deputy Warden
Powers, Nurses Estrom and Jane Doe, Health Services Administrators Brown and
Lightner, Commissioner James E. Dzurenda, and Lieutenant Ogando as defendants. At
that time of the filing of the Complaint, Mr. Guindon was incarcerated at MacDougall
Correctional Institution in Suffield, Connecticut. On April 3, 2014, the Court issued an
Order granting his application to proceed in forma pauperis and directing him to notify
the Clerk if his address changed at any time during the litigation of the case. Under
Rule 83.1(c), D. Conn. L. Civ. R., “[a]ny party appearing pro se must give an address
within the District of Connecticut where service can be made upon him or her in the
same manner as service is made on an attorney.”
On April 7, 2014, Mr. Guindon hand-delivered a change of address, indicating
that he was no longer in prison and resided in Hartford, Connecticut. On July 1, 2014, a

1

document mailed to Mr. Guindon at his address on file with the Court was returned as
undeliverable by the United States Postal Service. The envelope included a notation
that it was undeliverable because the plaintiff no longer resided at the Hartford address.
On December 1, 2014, this Court issued a Notice to Plaintiff directing Mr.
Guindon to effect service of the Complaint by December 22, 2014 and informing him
that if he failed to effect service by that date or show good cause for his failure to effect
service, the case would be dismissed. On December 11, 2014, the United States
Postal Service returned the envelope containing the Notice as undeliverable to the
plaintiff’s address in Hartford, Connecticut.
Now, more than two months after the Court’s deadline for the plaintiff to effect
service of the Complaint, the plaintiff has not contacted the Court, responded to the
Notice regarding service of the Complaint, or sent in a written document containing a
current address where he may be served with Orders and other documents filed in this
case. Because the plaintiff has failed to comply with a rule and order of the court, the
case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b). The Clerk is directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED this 27th day of February, 2015 at Bridgeport, Connecticut.

/s/ Victor A. Bolden
VICTOR A. BOLDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2