Rogers v. Internal Revenue Service et al

Filing 8

ORDER Dismissing Plaintiff's 1 Complaint Without Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JONAS LAVARUS ROGERS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 23-cv-13073
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT (ECF No. 1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff Jonas Lavarus Rogers filed this action against
Defendant the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) and the Commissioner of the
IRS. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) The Court subsequently granted Rogers in forma
pauperis status, and it directed him to complete certain documents and return them
to the Clerk of the Court so that the United States Marshal could serve his Complaint
on the Defendants (the “Service Order”). (See Service Order, ECF No. 6.) The Court
also issued an order informing Rogers that pursuant to Local Rule 11.2, he was
required to “promptly file a notice with the Clerk and serve a copy of the notice on
all parties whenever [their] address[es], e-mail address[es], phone number[s] and/or
other contact information changes” (the “Change of Address Order”). (See Change
of Address Order and Certificate of Service, ECF No. 4, PageID.22, citing E.D.
1

Mich. Local Rule 11.2.) The Court warned Rogers in the Change of Address Order
that the “failure to promptly notify the court of a change in address or other contact
information may result in the dismissal of [his] case.” (Id.; emphasis in original).
On December 19, 2023, the Change of Address Order was returned to the
Court as undeliverable. (See ECF No. 7.) The failure by a plaintiff to update his
contact information is not a mere technical violation of the rules. Without a current
address or accurate contact information, the Court has no way of administering this
civil action. In addition, Rogers has taken no action to respond to the Service Order.
He has not completed the service documents required by the Court. Nor has he
contacted the Court to ask for additional time to complete those documents.
Accordingly, because Rogers has failed to comply with Local Rule 11.2 by
updating his current address, and because Rogers has failed to prosecute this action
and complete the required service documents, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Rogers’
Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 5, 2024

2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on February 5, 2024, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
[phone]

3