STOKES v. MVCF CORRECTIONAL FACILITY et al

Filing 8

REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 1 Complaint filed by LEVI STOKES; 6 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Objections to R&R due by 10/3/2022. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (MFS)

Case 1:22-cv-00202-JAW Document 8 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 3

PageID #: 51

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
LEVI STOKES,

)
)
Plaintiff
)
v.
)
)
MVCF CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants
)

1:22-cv-00202-JAW

RECOMMENDED DECISION TO DISMISS
BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
On July 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint, and he subsequently filed an Application
to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs. (Complaint, ECF No. 1, Motion, ECF No.
4.) The Court granted the motion on July 25, 2022. (Order, ECF No. 5.) In its order, the
Court directed Plaintiff to notify the Court no later than August 15, 2022, of his intent to
proceed with this action and to acknowledge in his notice that he understands his obligation
to pay the complete filing fee as the requisite funds become available to him. Through the
order, the Court informed Plaintiff that a failure to comply with the order could result in the
dismissal of the complaint.
Because Plaintiff failed to file a notice of intent, on August 24, 2022, the Court issued
an Order to Show Cause. (Order, ECF No. 6.) In the Show Cause Order, the Court
established September 7, 2022, as the date by which Plaintiff was to show cause in writing as
to why he failed to comply with the Court’s order requiring that he notify the Court of his
intent to proceed with this action. The Court advised Plaintiff that if he failed to show cause,
his complaint could be dismissed. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Show Cause Order

Case 1:22-cv-00202-JAW Document 8 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 3

PageID #: 52

and has not otherwise communicated with the Court. Given Plaintiff’s failure to show cause,
I recommend the Court dismiss the matter.
DISCUSSION
“A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own docket, may dismiss
a case sua sponte for any of the reasons prescribed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” CintronLorenzo v. Dep’t de Asumtos del Consumidor, 312 F.3d 522, 526 (1st Cir. 2002) (citing Link
v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 – 31 (1962)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)
authorizes the Court to dismiss an action for a party’s failure to prosecute and failure to
comply with the Court’s orders. Here, Plaintiff has (a) failed to comply with the Court’s July
25, 2022, Order that required Plaintiff to notify the Court of Plaintiff’s intent to proceed, and
(b) failed to show cause in accordance with the Court’s Order to Show Cause. Plaintiff thus
has not only failed to comply with two of the Court’s orders, but insofar as he has not
notified the Court of his intent to proceed, Plaintiff has also failed to prosecute his claim.
Dismissal, therefore, is warranted.1

1 The docket reflects that the order to show cause sent to Plaintiff by regular mail to the Maine State Prison

address that Plaintiff provided was returned to the court as undeliverable, “Return to Sender, No Such Person
at Maine State Prison, Unable to Forward.” (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff’s failure to keep the court apprised of his
current address does not prevent dismissal. Parties to litigation have a duty to inquire periodically regarding
the status of the litigation and to keep the court informed of their current address and contact information.
United States v. Guerrero, 302 Fed. App’x 769, 771 (10th Cir. 2008); Lewis v. Hardy, 248 Fed. App’x 589,
593 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam); Carvel v. Durst, No. 1:09-cv-06733, 2014 WL 787829, at *1 n.5 (S.D.N.Y.
Feb. 25, 2014); Am. Arbitration Ass’n, Inc. v. Defonseca, No. 1:93-cv-02424, 1997 WL 102495, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 1997) (“[A] litigant’s obligation to promptly inform the Court and the opposing party of an
address change is a matter of common sense, not legal sophistication.”)

2

Case 1:22-cv-00202-JAW Document 8 Filed 09/19/22 Page 3 of 3

PageID #: 53

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint
without prejudice.
NOTICE
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate judge’s report
or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district court is sought, together with a
supporting memorandum, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to de novo
review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 19th day of September, 2022.

3