Milner v. Laplante et al

Filing 65

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. For the reasons set forth in the attached opinion, the Court DISMISSES this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) without prejudice to plaintiff's filing of a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) explaining why he has not complied with the Court's order to show cause. Any such motion must be filed promptly upon plaintiff's learning of the dismissal of this action. The Court DENIES without prejudice all pending motions as moot in light of the dismissal of this action. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/10/2020. (Al-Jarani, Y.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

SHAWN MILNER,
Plaintiff,
No. 3:18-cv-00903 (JAM)

v.
SHARRON LAPLANTE et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff Shawn Milner filed the complaint in this action while he was in the custody of
the Connecticut Department of Correction. Doc. #1. On January 2, 2019, the Court issued its
initial review order. Doc. #14. In accordance with the Court’s local rule that requires a selfrepresented litigant to provide a current address where service can be made upon such party, D.
Conn. L. Civ. R. 83.1(c)(2), the Court’s initial review order advised plaintiff that if he changes
his address at any time during the litigation of this case, he must notify the Court and that failure
to do so could result in dismissal of the case. Doc. #14 at 10.
On November 20, 2019, the Court entered an order to show cause why the case should
not be dismissed, stating in relevant part: “The Court’s own review of the Department of
Corrections on-line inmate locator reflects that plaintiff is no longer in the custody of the
Department of Corrections. Plaintiff shall file an updated address of record by December 11,
2019 as required by D. Conn. L. R. 83.1(c)(2) or the Court shall likely dismiss this action for
failure to prosecute.” Doc. #64.
The Department of Correction on-line inmate locator continues to reflect that plaintiff is
no longer in the custody of the Department of Correction, and plaintiff has yet to file any
response to the Court’s order to show cause to update his address. The Court declines to devote

its resources (as well as the resources of defendants) to the litigation and adjudication of an
action where there is substantial uncertainty about a plaintiff’s willingness to continue the
prosecution of the case as well as to comply with the Court’s rules and orders. “Courts have
repeatedly recognized that dismissal for failure to prosecute is appropriate where a plaintiff
effectively disappears by failing to provide a current address at which he or she can be reached.”
Fate v. Doe, 2008 WL 1752223, at *2 (collecting cases), adopted by 2008 WL 2661928
(S.D.N.Y. 2008).
After taking into account each of the factors outlined in U.S. ex rel. Drake v. Norden Sys.,
Inc., 375 F.3d 248, 254 (2d Cir. 2004), I conclude that it is appropriate for this action to be
dismissed. Because “dismissal with prejudice is a harsh remedy to be utilized only in extreme
situations,” Lyell Theatre Corp v. Loews Corp., 682 F.2d 37, 42 (2d Cir. 1982), I will dismiss
this action without prejudice.
Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), the Court DISMISSES this case without
prejudice to plaintiff’s filing of a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) explaining why he has not complied with the Court’s order to show cause. See Melvin v.
Miller, 2016 WL 1255548, at *1 (D. Conn. 2016) (granting Rule 60 motion to reopen action that
had been dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to update address where plaintiff promptly moved
after learning of the dismissal to reopen on the ground that he suffered from a severe illness and
where defendants were unable to show serious prejudice from reopening). Any such motion must
be filed promptly upon plaintiff’s learning of the dismissal of this action. The Court DENIES
without prejudice all pending motions as moot in light of the dismissal of this action. The Clerk
of Court shall close this case.
It is so ordered.

Dated at New Haven this 10th day of January 2020.
/s/ Jeffrey Alker Meyer
Jeffrey Alker Meyer
United States District Judge