Hook v. Mills

Filing 8

ORDER: This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 8/18/2017. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
THOMAS MANNING HOOK,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:17-cv-1104-33TBM

STEVE MILLS,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte.

On May

10, 2017, Plaintiff Thomas Hook filed a pro se Complaint
against Steve Mills, a Florida Detention Detective.

Hook’s

voluminous Complaint did not provide a cogent discussion of
the relevant facts, nor did it set forth a viable cause of
action over which this Court could exercise subject matter
jurisdiction.
In

connection

with

his

Complaint,

Hook

filed

an

application to proceed in forma pauperis, along with various
other motions. (Doc. # 2).

On July 5, 2017, the Magistrate

Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that
Hook’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice, with leave to
amend.

(Doc. # 4).

The Magistrate Judge explained: “The

Complaint is, in parts, illegible and, in full, a rambling
1

statement largely impossible to decipher.

The Complaint

wholly fails to comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, which require a short and plain
statement

in

numbered

relief.” (Id. at 3).

paragraphs

showing

entitlement

to

The Magistrate Judge recommended denial

of Hook’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, adding: “I
see no way a Defendant could or should be called upon to
respond to such incoherent and indecipherable allegations.”
(Id. at 4).
With

no

objection

to

the

Report

and

Recommendation

lodged, this Court adopted the Report and Recommendation on
July

25,

2017.

(Doc.

#

7).

The

Court

gave

Hook

the

opportunity to file an Amended Complaint by August 14, 2017,
and explained that failure to file an Amended Complaint by
that date would result in the dismissal of the case and case
closure. (Id. at 6).
Hook

failed

to

file

an

Amended

Complaint,

and

the

deadline for amendment as authorized by the Court has now
passed.

The Court accordingly dismisses his case without

prejudice.

The Clerk is directed to close the case.1

1

The record reflects that each Notice and Order sent by
the Court to Hook has been returned as “Undeliverable,”
despite many attempts to reach Hook, including mailing the
correspondence to multiple addresses.
However, it is Hook’s
2

Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:
This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

The Clerk is

directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
18th day of August, 2017.

duty to advise the Court of his current mailing address,
rather than the Court’s duty to ascertain Hook’s contact
information. See Weston v. St. Petersburg Police Dept., No.
8:09-cv-495-T-27TBM, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91798, at *4 (M.D.
Fla. Aug. 9, 2010) (“A party has a duty to keep the Court
informed of his/her address.”); Lewis v. Conners Steel Co.,
673 F.2d 1240, 1242-43 (11th Cir. 1982) (“Plaintiff should be
required to assume some minimum responsibility himself for an
orderly and expeditious resolution of his dispute,” including
keeping the court and opposing counsel informed “of address
changes.”).
3