Rossmann v. The Suffolk Times et al

Filing 11

ORDER re: 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as Plaintiff has not submitted the filing fee nor has he submitted a complete application and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This case is CLOSED. The Court certifies that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 8/12/2013. (C/M Plaintiff) (Nohs, Bonnie)

Rossmann v. The Suffolk Times et al

Doc. 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------X
BRUD ROSSMANN,
Plaintiff,

ORDER
13-CV-3142(JS)(GRB)

-againstTHE SUFFOLK TIMES, GRANT PARPAN,
PAUL SQUIRE, JENNIFER GUSTAVSON,
TIMES-REVIEW, JOHN DOE-1,
JOHN DOE-2, JOHN DOE-3,

Defendants.
----------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff:
Brud Rossmann, pro se
c/o Sawtooth Capital, LLC
1220 N Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20005
For Defendants:

No appearances.

SEYBERT, District Judge:
On

May

24,

2013,

pro

se

plaintiff

Brud

Rossmann

(“Plaintiff”) filed an eighty-six page, typed Complaint against the
Suffolk Times, Grant Parpan, Paul Squire, Jennifer Gustavson,
Times-Review, and three “John Does” (collectively, “Defendants”).1
On May 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a twenty-two page document seeking
leave

to

file

a

“Second

Verified

Amended

Complaint”

“Memorandum of Supporting Points and Authorities.”
3.)

with

a

(Docket Entry

However, Plaintiff did not remit the $400 filing fee nor did

1

Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this case, he
alleges that he is a 1989 cum laude graduate of Harvard Law
School and is a “former decorated Trial Attorney of the U.S.
Department of Justice.” (Compl. ¶ 21.)

Dockets.Justia.com

he submit a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis.2
Accordingly, by Notice of Deficiency (“Notice”) dated June 3, 2013,
Plaintiff was instructed that in order to proceed, he must pay the
$400 filing fee or submit a complete in forma pauperis application
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and an in forma pauperis application
was enclosed. (Docket Entry 4.) Plaintiff was warned that he must
act within fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Notice.

In

addition, on June 5, 2013, the Court sent Plaintiff a Case Opening
Letter that advised, inter alia, that he has a duty to keep the
Court informed of any change of address and that failure to do so
may result in dismissal of the Complaint for failure to prosecute
pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(Docket Entry 5.)

Both of the Court’s letters to the Plaintiff

were

undeliverable

returned

forward.”

as

and

were

stamped

“unable

to

(Docket Entries 7, 10.)
On June 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed a 192-page document

entitled

“Plaintiff’s

Second

Motion

for

Leave

Or,

In

The

Alternative, Rule 60(B) Motion For Reconsideration.” (Docket Entry
9.)

The only address provided by Plaintiff in this submission is

the same as that provided with his initial filings, “1220 N.
Street, NW, Washington D.C. 20005.”

(Id.)

When a party changes

addresses, it is his obligation to notify the court of his new

2

Plaintiff submitted only the first page of the two-page
application. (Docket Entry 2.)
2

address.

See Concepcion v. Ross, No. 92–CV-0770, 1997 WL 777943,

at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 1997).

This rule applies not only to

represented parties but also to pro se litigants.

Id.; see also

Handlin v. Garvey, No. 91–CV–6777, 1996 WL 673823, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 20, 1996) (explaining that the duty to inform the court and
defendants of a current address is “an obligation that rests with
all pro se plaintiffs”).

When a pro se litigant fails to provide

the court with notice of a change of address and misses an
important deadline as a result of this failure, a court may deny
the litigant’s request for relief. See, e.g., Dong v. United
States, No. 02–CV–7751, 2004 WL 385117, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2,
2004) (dismissing a pro se litigant’s claim because the litigant
failed to inform the court of his current address, causing the
court to lose contact with him).
Here, given that Plaintiff has not submitted the filing
fee nor has he submitted a complete application to proceed in forma
pauperis, his Complaint cannot proceed.

Moreover, the Court’s

efforts to communicate with Plaintiff have been fruitless because
Plaintiff has not provided a current address. Accordingly, the
Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Clerk of the Court
is directed to CLOSE this case.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith
and therefore, should Plaintiff seek leave to appeal in forma
3

pauperis, in forma pauperis status is DENIED for the purpose of any
appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45, 82 S.
Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

August
12 , 2013
Central Islip, New York

4