DeAlmeida v. U.S.Goverment, et al

Filing 14

Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered. For the failure to comply with this Courts directive and for the substantive reasons set forth in the November 21, 2017 memorandum and order, this action is hereby DISMISSED.(PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________
)
JOSEPH M. DeALMEIDA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
Civil Action No.
v.
)
17-11013-FDS
)
U.S. GOVERNMENT, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
____________________________________)
ORDER
SAYLOR, J.
On November 21, 2017, this Court issued a memorandum and order granting plaintiff’s
motion to proceed in forma pauperis and directing him to file an amended complaint. The
memorandum and order explained that the complaint was subject to dismissal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b)(1), (2). On November 27, 2017, the Court received plaintiff’s
letter seeking, among other things, to admit evidence.
On December 6, 2017, the memorandum and order was returned to the Court as
undeliverable. At that time, the clerk again mailed the memorandum and order to plaintiff after
updating his address on CM/ECF by adding his prison identification number and zip code. The
deadline for plaintiff to file an amended complaint was extended until January 2, 2018.
On December 28, 2017, again the memorandum and order was returned to the Court as
undeliverable. The Court’s records indicate that plaintiff has not responded to the memorandum
and order and the time to do so expired on January 2, 2018.
Apparently, plaintiff was released from custody and failed to inform the Court of his new
address as required under the local rules. See District of Massachusetts Local Rule 83.5.2(e)

(requiring pro se litigants to notify the clerk of any change of address). Plaintiff failed to meet
the deadline for filing an amended complaint and, since that time, has failed to provide a current
address.
It is a long-established principle that this Court has the authority to dismiss an action
sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute his action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “The authority
of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff's action . . . because of his failure to prosecute cannot
seriously be doubted,” and “is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of
pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” Link v. Wabash
R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); see Tower Ventures, Inc. v. City of Westfield, 296 F.3d
43, 46 (1st Cir. 2002) (“Although dismissal ordinarily should be employed only when a
plaintiff's misconduct is extreme, . . . disobedience of court orders, in and of itself, constitutes
extreme misconduct (and, thus, warrants dismissal)[.]”) (internal citation omitted) (citing Cosme
Nieves v. Deshler, 826 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1987)).
Dismissal is appropriate under the circumstances here. The Court is not required to delay
disposition in this case until such time as plaintiff decides to provide the Court with his current
address. Without plaintiff's active participation, the Court cannot effect the advancement of the
case to a resolution on the merits.
Accordingly, for the failure to comply with this Court’s directive and for the substantive
reasons set forth in the November 21, 2017 memorandum and order, this action is hereby
DISMISSED.
So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge

Dated: February 26, 2018
2