Salgado v. Orange County Correctional Facility et al

Filing 70

ORDER: Accordingly, given Plaintiffs failure to keep his address current, the Court is unable to communicate with him. And because Plaintiff has not otherwise communicated with the Court for over a year, it appears that Plaintiff has abandone d this case. See Greene v. Sposato, 16-CV-1243 (JMA) (ARL), 2019 WL 1559421, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2019). The Court therefore DISMISSES the above-captioned action without prejudice for want of prosecution. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this action, to mail a copy of this order to pro se Plaintiff at his last known address, and to show service on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 8/3/2022) (va)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
8/3/2022

LAZARO SALGADO,
Plaintiff,

17-CV-6040 (NSR)

-againstARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,
LLC et al.,

ORDER

Defendant.
NELSON S. ROMÁN, United States District Judge:
On May 17, 2022, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing pro se Plaintiff
Lazaro Salgado to show cause in writing on or before July 18, 2022, as to why his claims against
Defendant Aramark Correctional Services, LLC should not be dismissed for want of prosecution
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (ECF No. 68.) The Court expressly warned
Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Court’s show cause order would result in dismissal of this
action for want of prosecution. (Id.) The Court’s order was subsequently mailed to Plaintiff at the
Collins Correctional Facility, P.O. Box 340, Collins, NY 14043 address. However, on June 30,
2022, the order was returned to the Court and marked “Returned to Sender-Attempted—Not
Known—Unable to Forward.” A review of the New York Department of Corrections and
Community Supervision’s Incarcerated Lookup website reveals that Plaintiff was released from
custody on April 8, 2021, on parole.
“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, l 3-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.”).
This case cannot proceed unless the Court and defense counsel are able to contact Plaintiff.
See Pagan v. Westchester Cnty., 12-CV-7669, 2014 WL4953583, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 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 litigation cannot proceed without their participation.”). 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. New York D.O.C., 12-CV-2293, 2013 WL6153208, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.
21, 2013); Thornton, 2014 WL 2805236, at *2.
Accordingly, given Plaintiff’s failure to keep his address current, the Court is unable to
communicate with him. And because Plaintiff has not otherwise communicated with the Court for
over a year, it appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this case. See Greene v. Sposato, 16-CV-1243
(JMA) (ARL), 2019 WL 1559421, at *1–2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2019).

The Court therefore

DISMISSES the above-captioned action without prejudice for want of prosecution. The Clerk of
the Court is directed to terminate this action, to mail a copy of this order to pro se Plaintiff at his
last known address, and to show service on the docket.
Dated: August 3, 2022
White Plains, NY

2