MAFFETT v. CITY OF EVANSVILLE POLICE DEPT. et al

Filing 41

ENTRY and ORDER DISMISSING ACTION. This action is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/23/2014. Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail.(NMT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
EVANSVILLE DIVISION
WILLIE GENE MAFFETT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
C. OFFERMAN Police Officer E.P.D.,
W. SHIRLEY Police Officer E.P.D.,
C. THOMAS,
J.D. SCHWAMBACH,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:12-cv-00197-JMS-WGH

ENTRY AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
This action is dismissed without prejudice based on the Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action because of the following
conduct: the Plaintiff failed to appear at the telephonic status conference held by the magistrate
judge on March 24, 2014; he failed to comply with the order issued by the Court that date; he has
possibly changed his address and failed to notify the Clerk of how and where he can be reached.
The foregoing establishes that the Plaintiff has abandoned his prosecution of this action.
A pro se plaintiff maintains the duty to diligently pursue her cause of action in
accordance with court orders and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Holt v. Ford Motor
Credit Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9627, *3-5 (N.D. Ind. 2005) (citing Vukadinovich v.
McCarthy, 901 F.2d 1439, 1445 (7th Cir. 1990)). The Court has an “inherent power” to manage
its own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Link v. Wabash
R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). This inherent power includes dismissing a case for a
plaintiff’s failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), id., because a “party
cannot decide for itself when it feels like pressing its action and when it feels like taking a

break[,]” GCIU Employer Retirement Fund v. Chicago Tribune Co., 8 F.3d 1195, 1198-99 (7th
Cir. 1993) (quotation omitted).
Moreover, “[t]he duty to inform the Court and defendants of any change of address is ‘an
obligation that rests with all pro se plaintiffs.’” Alomar v. Recard, 2010 WL 451047, at * 2
(S.D.N.Y. 2010) (quoting Handlin v. Garvey, 1996 WL 673823, at * 5 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)); see
also Hayes v. Shield, 2012 WL 3114843, at * 1 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), report and recommendation
adopted by 2012 WL 3115798 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); Ackridge v. Martinez, 2011 WL 5865265, at * 3
(S.D.N.Y. 2011) “When a pro se litigant fails to provide the Court with notice of a change of
address, the Court may dismiss the litigant’s claims.” Bernard v. Romen, 2012 WL 6594622, at *
2 (E.D.N.Y. 2012), report and recommendation adopted by 2012 WL 6594525 (E.D.N.Y. 2012).
For these reasons, judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Any pending
motion, [Filing No. 32], is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
04/23/2014
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
WILLIE GENE MAFFETT
856883
PUTNAMVILLE - CF
PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
1946 West U.S. Hwy 40
Greencastle, IN 46135
Keith W. Vonderahe
ZIEMER STAYMAN WEITZEL & SHOULDERS
[e-mail]

Robert L. Burkart
ZIEMER STAYMAN WEITZEL & SHOULDERS
[e-mail]
Rhett David Gonterman
ZIEMER STAYMAN WEITZEL & SHOULDERS LLP
[e-mail]