Anderson v. Spizziota et al

Filing 983

ORDER: SO ORDERED that on or before June 30, 2014, Linzy T. Moore and Samuel Cephas must each serve and file an affidavit providing the Court with a new address and telephone number at which he can be contacted. THE ABOVE-REFERENCED PLAINTIFFS ARE A DVISED THAT A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL RESULT IN THAT PLAINTIFF'S 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. 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. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 6/9/2014. (Florio, Lisa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------)(
WALTER LEE ANDERSON, eta!.,
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
11-CV-5663 (SJF)(VfQ\YE D

-againstMICHAEL SPOSATO, individually and
in his official capacity as Nassau County
Sheriff, eta!.,
Defendants.

IN CLERK'S OFFICE
U S DISTRICT COURT E D NY

*

.iiiN

n.Q 1Z~I''*

LONG IS~..,· vr~tCS

----------------------------------------------------)(

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. § 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. et al. v. Sposato. eta!.,
No. 11-CV-5663; and (b) all subsequently filed 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-two (62) complaints consolidated under the lead case docket number.
Mail sent by the Court to the following two (2) plaintiffs in the consolidated action has
recently been returned to the Court as undeliverable: Linzy T. Moore (Doc. Nos. 930, 940, 943,
963 and 957) and Samuel Cephas (Doc. Nos. 958 and 965). Neither of those plaintiffs have
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. 11 Civ. 3714,2012 WL 3114843, at
* I (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2012), report and recommendation adopted by 2012 WL 3115798

(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 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."). The above-named plaintiffs cannot proceed with their claims unless
the Court is able to contact them to, inter alia, serve orders and schedule trial. See, ~ United
States ex rel. Roundtree v. Health and Hospitals Police Dept. ofNew York, No. 06 Civ. 212,
2007 WL 1428428, at* 1, 2 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2007) (holding that "defendants are at a severe
disadvantage in not knowing the address of the pro se litigant who has brought suit against
them."); Austin v. Lynch, No. 10 Civ. 7534,2011 WL 5924378, at* 2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2011),
report and recommendation adopted by 2011 WL 6399622 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2011) ("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. 11 cv 6346, 2012
WL 6594622, at* 2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2012), report and recommendation adopted by 2012 WL
6594525 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2012).
Accordingly, on or before June 30.2014, Linzy T. Moore and Samuel Cephas must each
serve and file an affidavit providing the Court with a new address and telephone number at which
he can be contacted.

THE ABOVE-REFERENCED PLAINTIFFS ARE ADVISED THAT A FAILURE
TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL RESULT IN THAT PLAINTIFF'S 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.
SO ORDERED,

s/ Sandra J. Feuerstein
Sandra J. Feuerstein
United States District Judge

Dated: June 9, 2014
Central Islip, New York