Anderson v. Spizziota et al
Filing
1030
ORDER: SO ORDERED that on or before September 8, 2014, Faucett must serve and file an affidavit providing the Court with a new address and telephone number at which he can be contacted during the course of this litigation. FAUCETT IS ADVISED THAT HI S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL RESULT IN HIS CLAIMS BEING DISMISSED IN THEIR ENTIRETY WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO RULES 37(b)(2)(A)(v) AND 41(b) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Pursuant to Rule 77(d)(l) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve notice of entry of this order upon all parties to the consolidated action in accordance with Rule 5(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. CM to pro se plaintiffs. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 8/7/2014. (Florio, Lisa)
Fiu_o
US
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
*
----------------------------------------------------)(
WALTER LEE ANDERSON, eta!.,
bN CLERK'S OFFICE0 N y
!STRICT COURT E
AUG 0 7 2014
*
LONG 1:-''11 ~m OFFICE
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
-against-
11-CV-5663 (SJF)(SIL)
MICHAEL SPOSATO, individually and
in his official capacity as Nassau County
Sheriff, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------)(
FEUERSTEIN, District Judge
By Order dated February 13, 2012 (the "Consolidation Order"), inter alia: (a) thirty-three
(33) complaints brought by incarcerated prose plaintiffs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 ("Section
1983") challenging the conditions at the Nassau County Correctional Center ("NCCC") were
consolidated for all purposes to proceed under the lead case, Anderson. eta!. v. Sposato. et al., No.
"
11-CV-5663; and (b) all subsequently tiled prose actions relating to the subject matter of the
consolidated action were directed to be consolidated under the lead case docket number. Currently
there are sixty (60) complaints consolidated under the lead case docket number.
Mail sent by the Court to consolidated plaintiff Lameek Faucett ("Faucett") has recently
been returned to the Court as undeliverable, with a printed notation, "Return to Sender. Not
Deliverable as Addressed. Unable to Forward[]" and a handwritten notation, "Donot [sic]live
here." (Doc. Nos. 1023 and 1024). Faucett has not notified the Court of a change of address or
otherwise provided updated contact information to the Court.
"The duty to inform the Court and defendants of any change of address is 'an obligation
that rests with all prose plaintiffs."' Alomar v. Recard, No. 07-CV-5654, 2010 WL 451047, at* 2
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2010) (quoting Handlin v. Garvey, No. 91 Civ. 6777, 1996 WL 673823, at* 5
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 1996)); see also Hayes v. Shield, No. II Civ. 3714,2012 WL 3114843, at* I
(S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2012), report and recommendation adopted l2y 2012 WL 3115798 (S.D.N.Y.
I
Aug. I, 2012); Ackridge v. Martinez, No. 09 Civ. 10400,2011 WL 5865265, at* 3 (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 22, 2011) ("[W]hen a party changes addresses, it is his obligation to notify the court of his
new address."). Faucett cannot proceed with his claims in this consolidated action unless the Court
is able to contact him to, inter alia, serve orders and schedule trial. See, ~ United States ex rei.
Roundtree v. Health and Hospitals Police Dept. ofNew York, No. 06 Civ. 212, 2007 WL 1428428,
at* I, 2 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2007) (holding that "defendants are at a severe disadvantage in not
knowing the address of the prose litigant who has brought suit against them."); Austin v. Lynch,
No. 10 Civ. 7534, 201 I WL 5924378, at* 2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2011), report and
recommendation adopted Qy 201 I WL 6399622 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20,201 I) ("Courts have
repeatedly recognized that dismissal for failure to prosecute is appropriate where a plaintiff
effectively disappears by failing to provide a current address at which he or she can be reached.");
Coleman v. Doe, No. 05-cv-5849, 2006 WL 2357846, at* 3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2006) ("To
require defendants to move forward would be impossible without plaintiff's participation.")
"When a pro se litigant fails to provide the Court with notice of a change of address, the Court may
dismiss the litigant's claims." Bernard v. Romen, No. II cv 6346,2012 WL 6594622, at* 2
(E.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2012), report l!!l4 recommendation adopted Qy 2012 WL 6594525 (E.D.N.Y.
Dec. 18, 2012). Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that on or before September 8. 2014, Faucett must serve and file an affidavit
providing the Court with a new address and telephone number at which he can be contacted during
the course of this litigation.
FAUCETT IS ADVISED THAT HIS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER
WILL RESULT IN IDS CLAIMS BEING DISMISSED IN THEIR ENTIRETY WITH
PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO RULES 37(b)(2)(A)(v) AND 41(b) OF THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
2
Pursuant to Rule 77(d)(l) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Clerk of the Court is
directed to serve notice of entry of this order upon all parties to the consolidated action in
accordance with Rule 5(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED.
s/Sandra J. Feuerstein
Sandra J. Feuerstein
United States District Judge
Dated: August 7, 2014
Central Islip, New York
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?