Robertson v. United States Government

Filing 7

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. [Copy of order sent by first-class mail to plaintiff on 10/26/17 at 157 West Thames St., Norwich, CT 06360 AND 576 West Thames St., Norwich, CT 06360.](PSSA, 3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

JAMES M. ROBERTSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 17-11164-LTS

ORDER
October 26, 2017
SOROKIN, D.J.
For the reasons stated below, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice.
I.

Background
James Robertson, proceeding pro se, filed this action in which he asks for correction of

his military record. He represents that if his dates of service were corrected, he would be eligible
for a military pension.
In the body of the complaint, he provided a street address of 157 West Thames Street in
Norwich, Connecticut. The Clerk used this address for the case docket. Robertson also used the
address 576 West Thames Street in Norwich, Connecticut on the signature line of the local
category sheet.
Robertson filed his complaint without paying the $400 filing fee or filing a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In an order dated September 1, 2017, the Court directed him
to pay the fee or seek indigent status. The order warned Robertson that failure to comply with
the order by September 22, 2017 could result in dismissal of the action. The Clerk sent a copy of
this order to Robertson using the address on the docket (157 West Thames Street, Norwich

Connecticut). Eleven days later, the copy of the order that the Clerk had mailed to Robertson
was returned as undeliverable. Robertson has not filed anything since the Court’s September 22,
2017 order on the filing fee.
II.

Discussion
Robertson’s failure to comply with the filing fee order is sufficient ground for dismissing

this case. Although the Court infers from the returned mail that Robertson never learned of the
filing fee order, it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to provide the Clerk with a proper address for
service, see District of Massachusetts Local Rule 83.5.5(e), (h), and the Clerk was entitled to rely
on the address that Robertson used in the complaint.
Even if the filing fee had been resolved, there another impediment to this action:
Robertson’s apparent failure to exhaust his administrative remedies by asking the Army Board
for Correction of Military Records. In 2015, Robertson filed a complaint virtually identical to
the present pleading. The 2015 case was dismissed based on the plaintiff’s failure to first seek
relief from the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. See Robertson v. U.S. Federal
Government, C.A. No. 15-10432-LTS (D. Mass.). In the present action, Robertson does not
explicitly or even implicitly indicate that he has exhausted his administrative remedies since the
dismissal of the 2015 case.
III.

Conclusion
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall send

a copy of this order to Robertson at the address on the docket and the address he provided on the
local category sheet.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2