Tubbs v. Lewis et al

Filing 7

OPINION and ORDER Summarily Dismissing #1 Complaint without Prejudice - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar)

Case 2:22-cv-12499-NGE-CI ECF No. 7, PageID.41 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT TUBBS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 2:22-CV-12499
HONORABLE NANCY G EDMUNDS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MICHAEL LEWIS, et. al.,
Defendants,
_________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
Robert Tubbs, (“Plaintiff”), filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. At the time he filed the complaint, plaintiff was incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan. On October 21, 2022, Magistrate Judge David
R. Grand signed an order requiring plaintiff to provide a current and certified computerized
trust fund statement of account so that the Court could determine whether plaintiff should
be permitted to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs. (ECF No. 4). The order
was mailed to plaintiff at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan. The order
was returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 6). For the reasons that follow, the civil rights
complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Local Rule 11.2 provides a court in the Eastern District of Michigan the authority
to dismiss a case for failure to keep the court apprised of address changes. The rule
states:
Every attorney and every party not represented by an attorney must include
his or her contact information consisting of his or her address, e-mail
address, and telephone number on the first paper that person files in a case.
If there is a change in the contact information, that person promptly must
1

Case 2:22-cv-12499-NGE-CI ECF No. 7, PageID.42 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 3

file and serve a notice with the new contact information. The failure to file
promptly current contact information may subject that person or party to
appropriate sanctions, which may include dismissal, default judgment, and
costs.
E.D. Mich. L.R. 11.2.
Plaintiff was also sent a notice advising him of his duty to inform the Court of any
change of address. (See ECF No. 5).
This Court may also dismiss a civil action for failure to prosecute pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and Rule 41.2 of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan.
See Mulbah v. Detroit Board of Education, 261 F.3d 586, 589 (6th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff
had a duty to provide the Court with his current address or risk dismissal. See Watsy v.
Richards, No. 86–1856, 1987 WL 37151 (6th Cir. April 20, 1987). Pro se litigants have
the same obligation as an attorney to notify the court of a change of address. See Carey
v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir.1988). “‘[Petitioner] has the duty to inform the court
of any address changes,’ and it is not incumbent upon this Court or its staff to keep track
of Petitioner’s current address.” Thompkins v. Metrish, No. 2:07–CV–12; 2009 WL
2595604, * 1, n. 1 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 2009)(quoting Kelly v. Wal–Mart, Inc., No. 7:07–
CV–0089; 2007 WL 2847068, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2007)).
Plaintiff has not provided the Court with his current address or contact information.
The Court will therefore dismiss the case without prejudice for want of prosecution
because plaintiff failed to notify this Court of any address changes. See Rollins v. Superior
Court of Los Angeles, 706 F. Supp. 2d 1008, 1013-14 (C.D. Cal. 2010); Alam v. Carvajal,
No. 5:20-CV-11407, 2020 WL 4583837, at * 2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 10, 2020); Brown v. White,
No. 2:09-CV-12902, 2010 WL 1780954, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2010).

2

Case 2:22-cv-12499-NGE-CI ECF No. 7, PageID.43 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 3

A district court has the option of the less drastic sanction of dismissing a case
without prejudice for want of prosecution under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). See e.g. White v. City
of Grand Rapids, 34 F. App’x. 210, 211 (6th Cir. 2002); Hill v. General Motors Corp, 897
F.2d 529 (Table); 1990 WL 25065, * 3, n. 2 (6th Cir. March 8, 1990). Because plaintiff is
acting pro se, the Court chooses to dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
The Court will summarily dismiss the civil rights complaint without prejudice. The
Court also concludes that an appeal from this order cannot be taken in good faith. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). This case
is closed and will not be reopened.

Dated: November 17, 2022

s/ Nancy G. Edmunds
HON. NANCY G. EDMUNDS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3