Medina v. Audain et al

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: For the reasons stated in the attached memorandum and order--namely, because Plaintiff has not contacted the Court, and the Court has no way of contacting Plaintiff--the action is dismissed without prejudice. See Dong v. Un ited States, No. 02 Civ. 7751, 2004 WL 385117, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2004) (dismissing for failure to prosecute where plaintiff failed to notify the Court of his address and the Court was unable to contact plaintiff). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff's last known address. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 2/28/2017. (Chivers, Jeffrey)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------x
JESSICA MARIA MEDINA,
Plaintiff,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

-against-

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
16-CV-7110 (PKC)(LB)

FELISHA AUDAIN, Child Protective Specialist;
SAMANTHA GRABKOWITZ, Child Protective
Specialist; GLADYS CARRION, Esq., Commissioner;
HON. ARNOLD LIM,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------x
PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge:
Pro se Plaintiff Jessica Maria Medina filed the above-captioned complaint dated December
10, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. At that time,
according to the complaint, Plaintiff was a prisoner in a detention facility in Bedford Hills, New
York. (Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”) at 11.) Plaintiff’s submission included neither the filing fee nor a
request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), accompanied by the Prisoner Authorization form,
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
On December 19, 2016, Plaintiff’s complaint was transferred to this Court in the interests
of justice, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Dkt. 2 at 3.) Thereafter, on December 27, 2016, the
Court entered an order notifying the parties of their rights under Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 to consent to
proceeding before a magistrate judge. (Dkt. 4.) The same day, the Court mailed a copy of this
Rule 73 notice to Plaintiff at the address listed in Plaintiff’s complaint, which was a detention
facility in Bedford Hills, New York. (See Dkt.)
On January 6, 2017, the Court’s letter to Plaintiff giving notice of her rights under Rule 73
was returned, unopened, with the postal notation “Return to Sender” and additional hand-written
notations indicating: “Discharged” and “DISC Max E.” A search of the inmate lookup database
at the website of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision

reveals

that

Plaintiff

was

discharged

on

December

20,

2016.

See http://nysdoccslookup.doccs.ny.gov/ GCA00P00/WIQ3/WINQ130 (Last visited 2/28/17).
Plaintiff has not provided a forwarding address.
Because Plaintiff has not contacted the Court, and the Court has no way of contacting
Plaintiff, the action is dismissed without prejudice. See Dong v. United States, No. 02 Civ. 7751,
2004 WL 385117, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2004) (dismissing for failure to prosecute where
plaintiff failed to notify the Court of his address and the Court was unable to contact plaintiff).
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff’s last known
address.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Pamela K. Chen
Pamela K. Chen
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 28, 2017

2