Brown v. Rivera et al

Filing 22

ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the attached, the case is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(b). The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 8/21/2017. (Howard, H.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
SHAQUILLE BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPTAIN RIVERA, ET AL.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:16v1286 (MPS)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The plaintiff, Shaquille Brown, commenced this civil rights action pro se by filing a
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Captain Rivera, Warden Carol Chapdelaine,
Counselor Supervisor John Aldi and District Administrator Angel Quiros. At the time, the
plaintiff was confined at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution.
On November 21, 2016, the court concluded that the Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference to safety and failure to protect from harm claims would proceed against the
defendants in their individual and official capacities. See Initial Review Order, ECF No. 7. On
February 28, 2017, the defendants filed an answer to the complaint.
On May 9, 2017, the defendants moved for an order to show cause why the case should
not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Counsel for the defendants stated that he had sent a
Notice of Deposition to the plaintiff to appear for a deposition on May 17, 2017. On April 30,
2017, the United States Postal Service returned the notice to counsel as undeliverable. Counsel
represented that the plaintiff had not contacted him or provided a current address where he might
be reached.

Department of Correction records reflect that the plaintiff is no longer incarcerated in a
prison facility in Connecticut1 and counsel for the defendants has filed documentation of the
plaintiff’s discharge date as April 13, 2017. See Mem. Supp. Mot. Order Show Cause, Ex. A,
ECF No. 19-2. The plaintiff did not respond to the defendants’ motion and has not otherwise
contacted the court since he filed the complaint in July 2016.
On August 1, 2016, Magistrate Judge William I. Garfinkel informed the plaintiff that
Local Rule 83.1(c)2 required him to notify the court if his address changed at any time during the
litigation of this case and that failure to notify the court might result in dismissal of the action.
See Order, ECF No. 6. There is no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff did not receive a copy of
Judge Garfinkel’s order. The plaintiff has failed to file a notice indicating his current mailing
address as required by Local Rule 83.1(c)(2) and Judge Garfinkel’s order.
On June 21, 2017, the court granted the defendants’ motion for order to show cause why
the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Ruling and Order, ECF No. 21 at
2. The court directed the plaintiff to file a statement, within thirty days, demonstrating why the
case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court warned the plaintiff that if he
did not respond to the order, the defendants could move to dismiss for failure to prosecute or the
court could sua sponte dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.
On June 22, 2017, the Clerk attempted to mail the order to the plaintiff at his address on
file with the court, Bridgeport Correctional Center, 1106 North Avenue, Bridgeport, Connecticut

The plaintiff’s Offender Information may be found on the Department of Correction
website under Inmate Search using his CT Inmate Number 361798. See
http://www.ct.gov/doc/site/default.asp. (Last visited on August 18, 2017).
2
1

06604. On July 19, 2017, the United States Postal Service returned the envelope containing the
order to the Clerk with a notation that it was unable to deliver it to the plaintiff at Bridgeport
Correctional Center and was unable to forward it to any other address. See Docket Entry, July
19, 2017.
The court concludes that the plaintiff has failed to comply with an order and rule of the
court regarding his obligation to keep his current mailing address on file with the Clerk. See
Order, ECF No. 6; Local Rule 83.1(c)(2). In addition, the plaintiff has not kept counsel for the
defendants apprised of his current address and counsel has been unable to complete discovery as
a result. Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute
pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/
Michael P. Shea, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

Hartford, Connecticut
August 21, 2017

3