Rossman v. Patterson et al

Filing 13

ORDER; Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 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 in forma pauperis status is therefore denied for the purpose of any appeal. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 4/6/2018. C/M (Valle, Christine)

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

ORDER
17-CV-4854(JS)(GRB)

L. ERIC PATTERSON, Department of
Homeland Security; JOSEPH MAHER,
Department of Homeland Security;
CHANNING PHILLIPS, U.S. Attorney;
MURIEL BOWSWER, Mayor of the
District of Columbia; CHARLES
JONES, Director, Project
Empowerment, Department of
Employment Services; and JOHN
DOES #1-3;
Defendants.
----------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff:
Brud Rossman, pro se
1580 Country Club Drive
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Brud Rossman, pro se
348155
D.C. Central Detention Center
1901 D. St. S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003
For Defendants:

No appearances.

SEYBERT, District Judge:
By Order to Show Cause dated February 8, 2018 (the
“Order”), pro se plaintiff Brud Rossman (“Plaintiff”) was “ORDERED
TO RESPOND TO THIS ORDER IN WRITING WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM
THE DATE OF THIS ORDER PROVIDING A CURRENT ADDRESS.

IF PLAINTIFF

IS INCARCERATED, HE IS FURTHER ORDERED TO FILE THE ENCLOSED PLRA
TOGETHER WITH HIS RESPONSE.

PLAINTIFF IS CAUTIONED THAT A FAILURE

TO TIMELY COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WILL LEAD TO THE

DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO RULE 41(B)
OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.” (See Order, Docket Entry
10.)

The Order was sent to Plaintiff at his address of record,

1580 Country Club Drive, Cutchogue, New York 11935, as well as to
the D.C. Central Detention Center, 1901 “D.” St. S.E., Washington,
D.C. 20003.

(See Order.)

On February 22, 2018 and February 28,

2018, the Court’s Order was returned to the Court and marked,
respectively,

“Return

Sender”,

“Vacant”,

Addressed”, and “Unable to Forward.”

“Not

Deliverable

as

(See Docket Entries 11-12.)

“The duty to inform the Court and defendants of any
change of address is ‘an obligation that rests with all pro se
plaintiffs.’”

Alomar v. Recard, 07-CV-5654, 2010 WL 451047, at *2

(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2010) (quoting Handlin v. Garvey, 91-CV-6777,
1996 WL 673823, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 1996)); see also English
v. Azcazubi, 13-CV-5074, 2015 WL 1298654, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 20,
2015) (“[W]hen a party, even a pro se litigant, changes addresses,
it is that party’s obligation to notify the Court of the new
address.”); Thornton v. Moroney, 13-CV-8912, 2014 WL 2805236, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2014) (explaining that pro se litigants have a
“duty to diligently pursue [their] case and to inform th[e] Court[]
. . . of any change of address.”) (citations omitted).

As is

readily apparent, this case cannot proceed unless the Court and
defense

counsel

are

able

to

contact

Plaintiff.

Pagan

v.

Westchester Cnty., 12-CV-7669, 2014 WL 4953583, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.
2

Oct. 1, 2014 (“Absent valid contact information, the Court cannot
apprise the plaintiffs of their obligations in or the status of
their

case,

and

the

participation.”).

litigation

cannot

proceed

without

their

If a pro se litigant fails to keep the Court

apprised of his or her current mailing address, “the Court may
dismiss the action under Rule 41(b) [of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure], for failure to prosecute.”

Mercedes v. N.Y. Dep’t of

Corr., 12-CV-2293, 2013 WL 6153208, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2013);
Thornton, 2014 WL 2805236, at *2.
Given

that

Plaintiff

is

not

receiving

mail

at

the

residential address of record he provided, and, to date, has not
provided an updated address, nor has he responded to the Court’s
Order,

it

appears

that

Plaintiff

has

abandoned

this

case.

Plaintiff’s Complaint is thus DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b).
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 in forma pauperis status is therefore 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.

Dated: April
6 , 2018
Central Islip, New York

/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
3