REICHLE v. COUNTY OF CAPE MAY et al

Filing 16

OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 9/16/2021. (dmr)(n.m.)

Case 1:16-cv-01465-RMB-MJS Document 16 Filed 09/16/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 90

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
_______________
:
EDWARD REICHLE,
:
:
Civ. No. 16-1465 (RMB/MJS)
Plaintiff
:
:
v.
:
OPINION
:
COUNTY OF CAPE MAY, et al.,
:
:
Defendants
:
:
BUMB, United States District Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte upon Plaintiff’s
failure to timely respond to this Court’s Order to Show Cause why
this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Order,
Dkt. No. 13.) Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Order to Show
Cause since November 18, 2020. Therefore, the Court will dismiss
this action without prejudice for the reasons discussed below.
II.

DISCUSSION
Mr. Aggarwal, counsel for Plaintiffs in the related class

action, In Re Cape May County Correctional Center, 15-8745 (RMB/JS)
(D.N.J.), has been unable to reach Plaintiff Edward Reichle at his
last known address or phone number to advise him of the status of
this individual action, which has been reopened upon settlement of
the class action in Dearie v. County of Cape May et al., 15-8785

Case 1:16-cv-01465-RMB-MJS Document 16 Filed 09/16/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 91

(RMB/JS), and is no longer consolidated in In Re Cape May County
Correctional Center, 15-8745 (RMB/JS).
“A district court has the authority to dismiss a suit sua
sponte for failure to prosecute by virtue of its inherent powers
and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” Azubuko v. Bell
Nat. Org., 243 F. App'x 728, 729 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Poulis v.
State

Farm

Fire

Plaintiff’s

&

counsel

Cas.

Co.,

cannot

747

F.2d

prosecute

863

this

(3d

Cir.

action

1984)).

without

the

ability to contact Plaintiff. Plaintiff has never apprised the
Court of his new address since this action was reopened upon
settlement of the related class action in November 2020. Plaintiff
was dilatory by failing to keep the Court apprised of his address
or contact information, and the defense is prejudiced by proceeding
on this individual claim almost two years after settlement of the
related class action. No alternative sanction but dismissal exists
when the plaintiff can not be located. The Court determines that
dismissal

without

prejudice

for

failure

to

prosecute

is

an

appropriate sanction. See Poulis, 747 F.2d 863 (discussing factors
to be considered before dismissal with prejudice for failure to
prosecute). Plaintiff may reopen this action if, within 30 days
from the date of this Order, he shows good cause for his failure
to prosecute. Otherwise, the case will remain closed.

2

Case 1:16-cv-01465-RMB-MJS Document 16 Filed 09/16/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 92

III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will dismiss this
matter without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Dated:

September 16, 2021

s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3