Caidor v. Tryon et al

Filing 13

ORDER that the complaint in this case is dismissed with prejudice, for failure to prosecute, pursuant to this Court's inherent power and Rule 41(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant's motion to dismiss 11 is denied as moot.***CLERK TO FOLLOW UP. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 10/11/12. (EMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________________
CONSTANT JEAN CAIDOR
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
11-CV-6379L
v.
DIR (BFDF) TODD TRYON,
Defendant.
________________________________________________
Plaintiff, Constant Jean Caidor, appearing pro se, commenced this civil rights action against
Todd Tryon, the director of the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility (“BFDF”). At the time of the
filing of the complaint, plaintiff was being held in custody at BFDF. He has asserted various claims
relating to an alleged denial of medical care for injuries that he allegedly sustained after falling from
a top bunk at BFDF.
Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion.
The original motion scheduling order issued by the Court, which was sent to the address
listed on the complaint, was returned as undeliverable. The order was then re-sent to plaintiff’s
updated address in Brooklyn, New York. That order, too, was returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff
has not responded to the motion or contacted the Court since before the motion was filed in April
2012.
Under these circumstances, I find that the complaint must be dismissed for failure to
prosecute. Federal courts are vested with the inherent authority of to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with
prejudice because of his failure to prosecute, “in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of
pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” McCants v. McCoy,
No. 00-CV-6444, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2008) (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626,
629-30 (1962)).

In addition, under this district’s Local Rules, pro se litigants have an obligation to
immediately notify the Court and opposing parties of any change in their address or contact
information. Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) requires that a party proceeding pro se “must
furnish the Court with a current address at which papers may be served on the litigant ... . In
addition, the Court must have a current address at all times. Thus a pro se litigant must notify the
Court immediately in writing of any change of address. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of
the case with prejudice.” Local Rule Of Civil Procedure 5.2(d).
Typically, when a party has failed to prosecute a case for an extended period, the Court sends
an order to both sides directing them to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for
failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 41(b). It would be pointless here to send such an order to
plaintiff, however, since he is apparently no longer receiving mail at the most recent address that he
provided to the Court. The Court has thus been effectively prevented from warning plaintiff that this
action is subject to dismissal, due to his own failure to keep the Court apprised of his address. Under
these circumstances, and given plaintiff’s apparent cessation of interest in continuing to prosecute
this action, I conclude that the complaint should be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to
prosecute. I therefore find it unnecessary to address the merits of defendant’s motion to dismiss.

CONCLUSION

The complaint in this case is dismissed with prejudice, for failure to prosecute, pursuant to
this Court’s inherent power and Rule 41(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant’s
motion to dismiss (Dkt. #11) is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________________________
DAVID G. LARIMER
United States District Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
October 11, 2012.

-2-