Conklin v. Bowen et al

Filing 69

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that plaintiff be granted until April 23, 2018 to submit his current mailing address to the court, or verify that his mailing address is as listed in the caption of this order and demonstrate compliance with the court 9;s monetary sanction of $450.00. ORDERED that, if plaintiff fails to comply, the court will sua sponte dismiss this action for failure to notify the court of his mailing address change, for failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with the Court's Orders. Signed by Senior Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 4/10/18. (Copy served via regular and certified mail on plaintiff at his address on record)(alh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________
JOSHUA CONKLIN,
9:14-cv-1098
(GLS/CFH)

Plaintiff,
v.
SERGEANT M. BOWEN et al.,

Defendants.
________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
JOSHUA CONKLIN
Plaintiff, Pro se
31 Lumber Street
Port Jervis, New York 12771
FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
New York State Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224

LYNN M. KNAPP BLAKE
Assistant Attorney General

Gary L. Sharpe
Senior District Judge

DECISION AND ORDER
The court cannot locate pro se plaintiff Joshua Conklin. Accordingly,
it considers sua sponte plaintiff’s noncompliance with this District's Local

Rules by failing to notify the court of his current address and by not
prosecuting his action.
On September 5, 2014, plaintiff filed a civil rights action. (Dkt. No. 1.)
On November 20, 2014, the court issued an order granting plaintiff’s in
forma pauperis application and directed the clerk to issue summons and
forward to the U.S. Marshal for service on defendant. Plaintiff was placed
on notice of his requirement to promptly notify the Clerk’s Office and all
parties or their counsel, in writing, of any change in his address; his failure
to do so will result in the dismissal of this action. (Dkt. No. 5.) This District
has expended considerable effort in order to familiarize pro se litigants with
the Local Rules by reminding them of their obligations in various
documents and orders mailed to them, and by preparing a Pro Se
Handbook that is easily accessible on the court’s website. In fact, copies
of the Handbook have been provided to all prison libraries in the Northern
District.
In relevant part, Local Rule 10.1(c)(2) provides:
[P]ro se litigants must immediately notify the
Court of any change of address. Parties must file
the notice of change of address with the Clerk and
serve the same on all other parties to the action. The
notice must identify each and every action to which
2

the notice shall apply.
In turn, Local Rule 41.2(b) provides that the “[f]ailure to notify the Court of a
change of address in accordance with L.R. 10.1(c)(2) may result in the
dismissal of any pending action.”
In fact, while this litigation has been pending, plaintiff has
acknowledged this obligation by filing or advising a change of address on
four (4) separate occasions. (Dkt. Nos. 29, 35, 48 and 62.)
Local Rule 41.2(b) mirrors Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which affords the court discretionary authority to dismiss an
action because of the failure to prosecute or to comply with any order of
the court. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962); see
also Lyell Theater Corp. v. Loews Corp., 682 F.2d 37, 43 (2d Cir. 1982).
On March 22, 2018, the court issued an order adopting Judge
Hummel’s Report-Recommendation and Order and directed plaintiff to
demonstrate compliance with the court’s monetary sanction on or before
April 6, 2018. (Dkt. No. 66.) The Clerk mailed a copy to plaintiff’s last
known address. The Order was marked “Return to sender - attempted not
known - unable to forward.” (Dkt. Nos. 67, 68.)
For the orderly disposition of cases, it is essential that litigants honor
3

their continuing obligation to keep the court informed of address changes.
See Michaud v. Williams, No. 98CV1141LEKGLS, 1999 WL 33504430, at
*1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 1999) (citing Fenza v. Conklin, 177 F.R.D. 126
(N.D.N.Y. 1998)).
It is neither feasible nor legally required that the clerks
of the district courts undertake independently to
maintain current addresses on all parties to pending
actions. It is incumbent upon litigants to inform the
clerk of address changes, for it is manifest that
communications between the clerk and the parties or
their counsel will be conducted principally by mail. In
addition to keeping the clerk informed of any change
of address, parties are obliged to make timely status
inquiries. Address changes normally would be
reflected by those inquiries if made in writing.
Dansby v. Albany Cty. Corr. Facility Staff, No. 95-CV-1525, 1996 WL
172699 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 1996) (quoting Perkins v. King, No. 84-3310,
slip op. at 4 (5th Cir. May 19, 1985)).
As a matter of course, courts in this District have dismissed actions
when litigants have failed to abide by either the Local Rules or orders
related to address changes, and have subsequently failed to prosecute
their actions. See Williams v. Faulkner, No. 95-CV-741, 1998 WL 278288,
at *1 (N.D.N.Y. May 20, 1998); Fenza, 177 F.R.D. at 126; Dansby, 1996
WL 172699.
4

Although the court concludes that it would be an appropriate exercise
of discretion to dismiss plaintiff’s action at this juncture for failure to notify
the court of his address change or to prosecute his action, it nonetheless
affords plaintiff additional time, until April 23, 2018, to comply with the
court’s previous order and this Order in providing an address where plaintiff
is able to receive mail.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff be granted until April 23, 2018 to submit his
current mailing address to the court, or verify that his mailing address is as
listed in the caption of this order and demonstrate compliance with the
court’s monetary sanction of $450.00, and it is further
ORDERED that, if plaintiff fails to comply, the court will sua sponte
dismiss this action for failure to notify the court of his mailing address
change, for failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with the Court’s
Orders; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk serve this Decision and Order on the
plaintiff at his last know address and on all other parties in accordance with
the Local Rules.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 10, 2018
Albany, New York

6