Mason v. Besse et al

Filing 48

ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, this matter is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk shall close this case. If plaintiff wishes to pursue this action, he may file a motion to reopen, providing good cause for reopening the case. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to plaintiff at his last known mailing address and at the email address previously provided to the Court. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 1/10/2022. (Teague, J.)

Case 3:20-cv-00246-SALM Document 48 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
------------------------------X
:
ALLEN KENNETH MASON
:
:
v.
:
:
BESSE, et al.
:
:
------------------------------X

Civil No. 3:20CV00246(SALM)

January 10, 2022

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
“If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with
these rules or a court order,” his case may be dismissed. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b). Plaintiff here has failed to prosecute and has
failed to comply with Court orders. Accordingly, as set forth
below, this matter is DISMISSED.
Self-represented plaintiff Allen Kenneth Mason filed this
action on February 21, 2020, while he was incarcerated. See Doc.
#1. After two amendments to the Complaint, the Court issued a
final Ruling and Order permitting plaintiff to proceed with the
following claims:
The First Amendment retaliation claim and the Fourth
Amendment claims detailed above will proceed against
Officers Krodel and Cannata in their individual
capacities, and the Fourteenth Amendment claim that the
conditions that Mason endured during his confinement at
the Norwich Police Department constituted punishment
will proceed against Officer Krodel in his individual
capacity.
Doc. #21 at 14. On June 3, 2021, plaintiff filed a Notice of
Change of Address informing the Court that his new address was:

~ 1 ~

Case 3:20-cv-00246-SALM Document 48 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 6

423 Dixwell Avenue, New Haven, CT, 06511. See Doc. #26 at 1. He
also provided an email address: [e-mail]. See
id. The Court scheduled a status conference for July 6, 2021,
and plaintiff appeared for that conference. See Doc. #33.
Nothing further was filed by plaintiff after that June 3,
2021, change of address.
On October 14, 2021, counsel for defendants filed a motion
to compel, asserting that plaintiff had failed to respond to
repeated requests for medical records, from July 8, 2021,
through the date of the motion. See Doc. #37. Counsel affirmed
that he had attempted to reach plaintiff by letter and email on
July 8, 2021; August 5, 2021; September 1, 2021; and September
29, 2021. See Doc. #37-1 at 2. The Court denied the motion
without prejudice for failure to comply with technical
requirements of the Local Rules. See Doc. #39.
On October 25, 2021, the Court docketed a Notice of
Calendar, scheduling a telephonic status conference in this
matter for November 10, 2021, at 9:30 a.m. See Doc. #41. A copy
of the Calendar Notice was mailed to plaintiff at his address of
record on October 26, 2021.
On October 29, 2021, and November 2, 2021, the Court
received returned mail from the United States Postal Service,
indicating that those items were undeliverable to plaintiff as
addressed at his address of record. The Court had previously

~ 2 ~

Case 3:20-cv-00246-SALM Document 48 Filed 01/10/22 Page 3 of 6

received other items addressed to plaintiff’s address of record
returned as undeliverable on July 9, 2021. However, no change of
address had been received from plaintiff, and the Court had no
other address to which to direct communications regarding this
case.
On November 2, 2021, in light of the returned mail, the
Court issued an Order to Show Cause, requiring plaintiff to show
why this case should not be dismissed “for failure to prosecute
and failure to notify the Court of any change in address.” Doc.
#42 at 2. The Court set a deadline of November 23, 2021, for
plaintiff to respond. See id.
On November 3, 2021, plaintiff called the Clerk's Office to
inquire as to the status of his case. The Clerk advised
plaintiff that mail sent to him had been returned as
undeliverable. Plaintiff stated that he had moved, and the Clerk
directed plaintiff to file a Notice of Change of Address
immediately. See Doc. #43. No such Notice was filed.
As previously noted, plaintiff provided the email address
"[e-mail]" in a Notice of Change of Address.
Doc. #26 at 1. On November 3, 2021, the Court docketed an Order
providing the date, time, and dial-in information for the
November 10, 2021, conference, again, and directed that the
Clerk send that Order to plaintiff at the email he had provided.
See Doc. #43. No response was received to the Clerk’s email.

~ 3 ~

Case 3:20-cv-00246-SALM Document 48 Filed 01/10/22 Page 4 of 6

On November 10, 2021, the Court conducted the scheduled
telephonic conference. Plaintiff did not appear. See Doc. #44.
The Court therefore issued another warning to plaintiff,
advising him: “The Court has ordered plaintiff to show cause by
November 23, 2021, why this matter should not be dismissed. See
Doc. #42. If the Court does not receive a satisfactory response
to the Order to Show Cause by the close of business on November
23, 2021, this matter will be dismissed.” Doc. #45 at 2-3. This
Order was mailed to the only address the Court has for
plaintiff, that is, his address of record.
On November 15, 2021, the Court received two returned
envelopes, which contained Doc. #40, Doc. #41, and Doc. #42,
addressed to plaintiff’s last known address, marked
undeliverable because “NOT HERE.”
On November 22, 2021, plaintiff called the Clerk’s Office.
The Clerk again advised plaintiff that the mail sent to him had
been returned as undeliverable and advised plaintiff that his
case would be closed on November 23, 2021, if he did not file
anything. Plaintiff asked that the case not be closed because he
currently has no place to receive mail and he can only be
contacted by telephone.
Plaintiff did not file any response to the Order to Show
Cause by the deadline of November 23, 2021.
On November 24, 2021, the Court issued a final warning to

~ 4 ~

Case 3:20-cv-00246-SALM Document 48 Filed 01/10/22 Page 5 of 6

plaintiff, stating:
This case is subject to dismissal. The Court, however,
is mindful of plaintiff’s situation. Accordingly, the
Court will provide one final opportunity to plaintiff to
respond to the Court’s prior orders, and to inform the
Court whether he wishes to pursue this matter. If the
Court does not receive an appropriate response by
January 5, 2022, the case will be DISMISSED, without
further notice.
Doc. #46 at 6. The Order was sent to plaintiff at both his last
known mailing address and the email address previously noted.
See id.
On December 3, and December 21, the Court again received
returned envelopes, which contained Doc. #44, Doc. #45, and Doc.
#46, addressed to plaintiff’s last known address, marked
undeliverable because “NOT HERE.”
Plaintiff has failed to appear for a duly scheduled
conference, of which notice was sent by both postal mail and
email. He has failed to respond to repeated Court orders. Other
than his phone calls to the Clerk’s Office on November 3, 2021,
and November 22, 2021, the Court has had no contact from
plaintiff at all since the July 6, 2021, scheduling conference.
The Court is sympathetic to the plaintiff’s circumstances
but is unable to address this matter if plaintiff does not
participate in it. Plaintiff has now failed to prosecute this
matter for six months. The delay has caused prejudice to
defendants, in that they have been unable to proceed with

~ 5 ~

Case 3:20-cv-00246-SALM Document 48 Filed 01/10/22 Page 6 of 6

discovery.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, this matter
is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk shall close this case.
If plaintiff wishes to pursue this action, he may file a
motion to reopen, setting forth good cause for his failures to
prosecute and to comply with Court orders, and a basis for
reopening the case.
It is so ordered at New Haven, Connecticut, this 10th day of
January, 2022.
_/s/________________________
HON. SARAH A. L. MERRIAM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

~ 6 ~