Rossmann v. The Suffolk Times et al
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-againstTHE SUFFOLK TIMES, GRANT PARPAN,
PAUL SQUIRE, JENNIFER GUSTAVSON,
TIMES-REVIEW, JOHN DOE-1,
JOHN DOE-2, JOHN DOE-3,
Brud Rossmann, pro se
c/o Sawtooth Capital, LLC
1220 N Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20005
SEYBERT, District Judge:
(“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
“Memorandum of Supporting Points and Authorities.”
However, Plaintiff did not remit the $400 filing fee nor did
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.)
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.
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
(Docket Entries 7, 10.)
On June 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed a 192-page document
Alternative, Rule 60(B) Motion For Reconsideration.” (Docket Entry
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.”
When a party changes
addresses, it is his obligation to notify the court of his new
Plaintiff submitted only the first page of the two-page
application. (Docket Entry 2.)
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
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).
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
12 , 2013
Central Islip, New York
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?