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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?