Walker v. Ball et al
ORDER: ORDERED, that Plaintiff shall, within thirty days of the filing date of this Order, provide the Court and opposing counsel with confirmation in writing of his present address. Plaintiff shall also inform the Court and opposing counsel his inte ntions with regard to the pending Motion for Summary Judgment and explain why he did not respond to such Motion within the time allotted. ORDERED, that should Plaintiff fail to comply with this Order and confirm his address, the Clerk shall return the matter to the undersigned so that a recommendation of dismissal can be issued for the District Judge's review. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart on 10/31/17. ( Notice of Compliance Deadline 12/1/2017) (served on plaintiff at Green Haven Correctional Facility and at 20 Pierce Road, Apt. #60, Newburgh, NY 12550)(alh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ERIC WALKER, a/k/a Eric Qwasim Z Walker, a/k/a
Eric Z Q Walker,
Civ. No. 9:16-CV-0437
R. BALL, Captain, Washington Correctional Facility, et al.,
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Green Haven Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 4000
Stormville, New York 12582
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the State of New York
Attorney for Defendants
Albany, New York 12224
NICOLE E. HAIMSON, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General
DANIEL J. STEWART
United States Magistrate Judge
In April 2016, pro se Plaintiff Eric Walker commenced this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. No. 1, Compl. At the time he commenced this action, Plaintiff was in the
custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) and was
confined at Green Haven Correctional Facility (“Green Haven”). Id. Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint, Dkt. No. 11, which was accepted for filing by the Court on August 29, 2016, Dkt. No.
22. On September 29, 2016, a Mandatory Pretrial Discovery and Scheduling Order was issued,
setting forth, inter alia, deadlines for discovery and filing of dispositive motions. Dkt. No. 28.
On July 10, 2017, Defendants requested an extension of the dispositive motion deadline, Dkt.
No. 48, which the Court granted, Dkt. No. 49. The Court’s Order—served on Plaintiff by regular
mail at his address of record at Green Haven—was returned as “undeliverable as addressed” because
the recipient was “no longer here.” See Dkt. No. 52. On July 19, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment and served a copy of the same on Plaintiff at a private address: 20 Pierce
Road, Apt. # 60, Newburgh, New York 12550. Dkt. Nos. 50 & 50-15. On July 20, 2017, the Clerk
of the Court sent Plaintiff a Notice advising him that a Motion for Summary Judgment had been
filed and that his response was due on or before August 21, 2017. Dkt. No. 51. The Notice further
advised Plaintiff of the consequences if he failed to respond to the Motion. Id. The Notice was
served on Plaintiff at his address of record at Green Haven, as well as the address in Newburgh, New
York, and enclosed was a change of address form. Id. That Notice was again returned as
undeliverable by Plaintiff’s address of record at Green Haven. Dkt. No. 53. To date, Plaintiff has
not responded to Defendants’ Motion nor provided the Court with an updated address.
In this District, all litigants have an ongoing obligation to keep their address information
updated with both the Court and adversaries. N.D.N.Y.L.R. 10.1(c)(2) (“All attorneys of record
and pro se litigants must immediately notify the Court of any change of address.” (emphasis
in original)). A party’s failure to provide such information is grounds for dismissal. N.D.N.Y.L.R.
41.2(b). As then-District Judge Pooler has observed:
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 Cnty. Corr. Facility Staff, 1996 WL 172699, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 1996)
Indeed, courts in the Northern District of New York have dismissed lawsuits brought by pro se
plaintiffs for failure to provide a current address. See Rivera v. Goord, 1999 WL 33117155
(N.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 1999); Fenza v. Conklin, 177 F.R.D. 126 (N.D.N.Y. 1998); Williams v.
Faulkner, 1998 WL 278288 (N.D.N.Y. May 20, 1998); Morgan v. Dardiz, 177 F.R.D. 125
(N.D.N.Y. 1998); Dansby v. Albany Cty. Corr. Facility Staff, 1996 WL 172699.
In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will provide him an opportunity to confirm his
current address. Plaintiff should note that his failure to comply and notify the Court of his current
whereabouts may result in this Court recommending dismissal of this action.
For the reasons stated herein, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Plaintiff shall, within thirty days of the filing date of this Order, provide
the Court and opposing counsel with confirmation in writing of his present address. Plaintiff shall
also inform the Court and opposing counsel his intentions with regard to the pending Motion for
Summary Judgment and explain why he did not respond to such Motion within the time allotted; and
it is further
ORDERED, that should Plaintiff fail to comply with this Order and confirm his address, the
Clerk shall return the matter to the undersigned so that a recommendation of dismissal can be issued
for the District Judge’s review; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff at the
Green Haven Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 4000
Stormville, NY 12582
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: October 31, 2017
Albany, New York
20 Pierce Road
Apt. # 60
Newburgh, NY 12550
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?