ENGLESBOBB v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

Filing 51

ORDER OF DISMISSAL By JUDGE LANCE E. WALKER. (clp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ANTHONY ENGLESBOBB,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:22-cv-00351-LEW

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Anthony Englesbobb, proceeding pro se, filed Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF
No. 1) on November 7, 2022. On March 14, 2023, the United States Magistrate Judge filed
with the Court his Recommended Decision after Review of Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No.
13), which recommended sua sponte dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff subsequently
filed his Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18), which alleged a new claim under the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. On May 10, 2023, The United States
Magistrate Judge filed his Supplemental Report and Recommended Decision (ECF No.
19), which recommended dismissal of all claims except Plaintiff’s due process claim. On
July 6, 2023, I issued an Order on Recommended Decisions (ECF No. 23) dismissing the
March 14 Recommended Decision (ECF No. 13) and affirming the May 10 Recommended
Decision (ECF No. 19), allowing Plaintiff to proceed with his due process claim.
The matter is presently before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 46), which I need not address. In this motion Defendants’ attorney
submitted a Declaration Regarding Service which states the Plaintiff “was released from

the Maine State Prison and the custody of the Maine Department of Corrections on March
22, 2024, and he did not provide the Department a forwarding address.” Defs.’ Mot. at 9.
The most recent court Notice (ECF No. 49) sent to Plaintiff at Maine State Prison was
returned as undeliverable (ECF No. 50). The Court has not heard from Plaintiff since
January 8, 2024, a little over eight months ago.
“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)). Rule 41(b) allows the Court to
dismiss an action for a party’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s
orders. Litigants have a duty to inquire into the status of litigation and to keep the court
informed of their current address. United States v. Guerrero, 302 F. App’x 769, 771 (10th
Cir. 2008); 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.”).
Given Plaintiff’s lengthy silence and failure to provide the court with a current
address, I find it likely Plaintiff has abandoned his case. As appropriate for Plaintiff’s
failure to prosecute, his case is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 26th day of September, 2024.

2

/s/Lance Walker
Chief U.S. District Judge