MOLLEY v. VARGAS et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 3/2/2017. (TH, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______________________________
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
OFFICER VARGAS, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
______________________________:
SHAR-RIK MOLLEY,

Civ. No. 16-1920 (NLH)
MEMORANDUM OPINION

APPEARANCES:
SHAR-RIK MOLLEY
243576
ACJF
5060 ATLANTIC AVE
MAYS LANDING, NJ 08330
Plaintiff Pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
THIS MATTER having been opened by the Court sua sponte, and
it appearing that:
1.

Plaintiff Shar-rik Molley (“Plaintiff”) recently filed

three civil rights actions which were assigned to this Court.
See Molley v. Vargas, No. 16-1920 (“Molley-I”); Molley v. Cohen,
No. 16-2165 (“Molley-II”); and Molley v. DeBose, No. 16-2297
(“Molley-III”).
2.

On March 28, 2016, Plaintiff submitted a Complaint in

the instant matter alleging violations of his civil rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. s 1983.

(ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiff

thereafter submitted a motion for appointment of pro bono
counsel.
3.

(ECF No. 9.)
On September 13, 2016, the Court entered an Order,

granting Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
and informing Plaintiff that summons would not yet issue as the
Court must conduct its sua sponte screening under 28 U.S.C. §§
1915, 1915A.
4.

(ECF No. 10.)

During this same time period, in Molley-III, the Court

denied Plaintiff’s initial application to proceed in forma
pauperis (Civil Action No. 16-2297, ECF Nos. 4-5), as well as
his second application (Id., ECF Nos. 7-8).
5.

The Court sent a copy of the Opinion and Order denying

the second application to Plaintiff at his last known address at
the Atlantic County Justice Facility, however, the Opinion and
Ordered were returned to the Court with a notation that
Plaintiff was no longer housed at the Justice Facility.

(Id.,

ECF No. 12.)
6.

Apparently before he received the Court’s September 29th

Opinion and Order denying his second application to proceed in
forma pauperis, Plaintiff submitted a third application.
ECF No. 9.)

(Id.,

The Court entered an Opinion and Order on October

27, 2016 denying that application (Id., ECF Nos. 10-11) and the
copy of those documents sent to Plaintiff at the jail also were
returned marked undeliverable (Id., ECF No. 13).
2

7.

Since his release from Atlantic County Justice

Facility, Petitioner has not communicated with the Court
regarding his Complaint in this case, including failing to
provide the Court with his new address in violation of L. Civ.
R. 10.1.

See L. Civ. R. 10.1(a) (“Counsel and/or unrepresented

parties must advise the Court of any change in their or their
client’s address within seven days of being apprised of such
change by filing a notice of said change with the Clerk.”).
8.

Based on Petitioner’s failure to update his address in

compliance with Local Civil Rule 10.1, the Court will
administratively terminate this matter and dismiss his Motion
for Pro Bono Counsel without prejudice.

If Petitioner updates

his address and otherwise satisfies all appropriate Rules, the
Court will re-open this action to conduct its screening of the
Complaint and address the Motion.
9.

An appropriate order follows.

Dated: March 2, 2017
At Camden, New Jersey

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

3