Martin v. Bigger et al

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for Failure to Prosecute. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DANIEL MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-14260
v.
Hon. Terrence G. Berg
Hon. R. Steven Whalen

ATTORNEY SCOTT BIGGER
and BIGGER LAW FIRM,
Defendants.
______________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING THE CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
On November 28, 2016, plaintiff Daniel Martin filed a pro se civil complaint
naming his former attorney, Scott Bigger, and the Bigger Law Firm as defendants.
The address Plaintiff provided for himself was:
Daniel Martin #7665
1002 Saginaw Street
Flint, MI 48502
This is the address for the Genessee County Jail. The complaint references
“ineffective assistance of counsel” and “violation of constitutional rights,” and also
complains of conditions of confinement. On December 7, 2016, the Court attempted
to inform Plaintiff that it was his responsibility to inform the Court of any change in
his address. (Dkt. 2). Although the notice was sent to Plaintiff at the address he
provided when he filed his complaint, the notice was returned to the Court on
December 28, 2016, with the following notation on the envelope:
RETURN TO SENDER
INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS
UNABLE TO FORWARD

(Dkt. 5)
The same thing occurred after United States Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen
ordered Plaintiff on December 8, 2016, to prepay the filing fee for his complaint or to
apply for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. (Dkt. 3). Magistrate
Judge Whalen’s order was returned to this Court on December 28, 2016, with the
following notation on the envelope:
RETURN TO SENDER
NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED
UNABLE TO FORWARD
(Dkt. 4)
This District’s Local Rules require a party to promptly notify the Court of any
changes in his address. See LR 11.2. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and
LR 41.2, the Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute. Mulbah v. Detroit
Bd. of Educ., 261 F.3d 586, 589 (6th Cir. 2001).
The power to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution is necessary “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. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962);
see also Branham v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 225 F. Supp. 2d 762, 769 n. 4
(E.D. Mich. 2002) (stating that, “[a]lthough [Federal] Rule 41(b) nominally requires
a motion by defendant, Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 41.2 expressly
authorizes sua sponte dismissals for lack of prosecution”).
Plaintiff has taken no steps to pursue this case since he filed his complaint. Given
that the documents mailed to him at his last known address were returned to the
2

Court as undeliverable, it is possible that Plaintiff has been released or transferred
to another correctional facility. In either case, Plaintiff has not provided the Court
with his current address and it is therefore not possible for the Court to communicate
with Plaintiff to advance the case.
Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to
prosecute and for Plaintiff’s failure to provide the Court with prompt notice of his
correct address.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2017

s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on January 20,
2017, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to all parties.
s/A. Chubb
Case Manager

3