Brown v. Curry County Adult Detention Center

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL by District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales dismissing without prejudice 1 Complaint. (tah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
DAVID BROWN,
Plaintiff,
vs.

No. CV 20-00741 KG/SMV

CURRY COUNTY ADULT DETENTION CENTER,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) on the
handwritten complaint (“Complaint”) filed by Plaintiff David Brown on July 23, 2020. (Doc. 1).
The Court will dismiss the Complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with a Court order
and failure to prosecute.
The Court entered an Order to Cure Deficiencies on August 12, 2020, directing Plaintiff
Brown to file his Complaint in proper form, and pay the filing fee or submit an application to
proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). Plaintiff Brown never responded to the Court’s Order to
Cure Deficiencies. The record reflects that certain mailings to Plaintiff David Brown were
returned as undeliverable. (Docs. 3, 5). The Court’s research indicates that Plaintiff Brown has
been released from the Curry County Detention Center. It appears that Plaintiff has been
transferred or released from custody without advising the Court of his new address, as required by
D.N.M. LR-Civ. 83.6, thus severing contact with the Court.
The Court issued an Order to Show Cause on September 3, 2020, directing Plaintiff Brown
to notify the Court of a new address, or otherwise show cause why the case should not be

dismissed, within 30 days of entry of the Order. (Doc. 4). More than 30 days has elapsed since
entry of the Order to Show Cause and Plaintiff Brown has not provided the Court with a new
address, responded to the Court’s Order, or otherwise shown cause why the case should not be
dismissed.
Pro se litigants are required to follow the federal rules of procedure and simple,
nonburdensome local rules. See Bradenburg v. Beaman, 632 F.2d 120, 122 (10th Cir. 1980). The
local rules require litigants, including prisoners, to keep the Court apprised of their proper mailing
address and to maintain contact with the Court. D.N.M. LR-Civ. 83.6. Plaintiff Brown has failed
to comply with D.N.M. LR-Civ. 83.6 and with the Court’s August 12, 2020, Order to Cure
Deficiencies and September 3, 2020, Order to Show Cause.
Plaintiff Brown has failed to comply with the Court’s orders and failed to prosecute this
action by not keeping the Court apprised of his current address. The Court may dismiss an action
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute, to comply with the rules of civil procedure, or
to comply with court orders. See Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204, n. 3 (10th Cir. 2003).
Therefore, the Court will dismiss this civil proceeding pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to comply
with the Court’s Order and failure to prosecute this proceeding.
IT IS ORDERED that the Complaint filed by Plaintiff David Brown (Doc. 1) is
DISMISSED without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with the Court’s
Orders and failure to prosecute.

__________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2