Richardson v. Arshad et al

Filing 93

ORDER: Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a letter informing the Court of any new address by January 24, 2025. If Plaintiff does not provide the Court with an updated address, does not contact the Corporation Counsel, or do es not otherwise demonstrate any intent to prosecute this action, I will dismiss this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the address on file, and to email a copy of this Order to Plaintiffs attorney in the state criminal case at [e-mail]. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 11/25/2024) (sgz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------- X
:
:
DEWAYNE RICHARDSON,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
- against :
:
:
RUFIAN ARSHAD, et al.,
:
Defendants. :
:
--------------------------------------------------------- X

20-CV-5068 (VSB)
ORDER

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:
In this pro se action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants illegally arrested him on March 23,
2019, and violated his constitutional rights. (See Doc. 11.) On July 22, 2021, I stayed the action
pending the resolution of Plaintiff’s state criminal proceedings relating to the arrest. (Doc. 27.)
The parties then periodically filed joint letters informing me of the status of the state case. (E.g.,
Doc. 66.) On November 6, 2023, interested party the Office of the Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York (the “Corporation Counsel”), on behalf of Defendants, informed me that it had
been unable to contact Plaintiff. (Doc. 71.)
On February 16, 2024, I ordered Plaintiff to provide the Court with an up-to-date mailing
address by March 1, 2024. (Doc. 78.) Since then, Plaintiff has not provided an updated address,
and the Corporation Counsel has been unable to contact Plaintiff to confer regarding Plaintiff’s
underlying criminal case. (Doc. 92.) The Pro Se Information Packet warned Plaintiff that his
failure to notify the Court of a change in address could result in dismissal of his case. (See Doc.
8 at 1.) Courts routinely dismiss pro se claims for the plaintiff’s failure to provide the court with
an updated mailing address. See, e.g., Bezares v. Buyk Corp., 22-CV-7034 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 16,
1

2024), ECF No. 12; Lassiter v. Okene, 22-CV-9561 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2023), ECF No. 23.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a letter informing the Court of any new address by
January 24, 2025. If Plaintiff does not provide the Court with an updated address, does not
contact the Corporation Counsel, or does not otherwise demonstrate any intent to prosecute this
action, I will dismiss this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the
address on file, and to email a copy of this Order to Plaintiff’s attorney in the state criminal case
at [e-mail].
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 25, 2024
New York, New York
______________________
Vernon S. Broderick
United States District Judge

2