Alexander v. Garvin et al

Filing 56

OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James H. Payne : This action, is in all respects, DISMISSED WITHOUR PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.(case terminated) (acg, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RE´SHAUN A. ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEREMY GARVIN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 16-455-JHP-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER
On October 18, 2016, Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, filed this civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging his constitutional rights were violated while he was
incarcerated in the Muskogee County Jail (Dkt. 1). He paid the initial partial filing fee on
November 18, 2016.
On May 16, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff a 30-day extension of time to respond
to a pending motion to dismiss by Defendants Kenny Payne and Stephen Wright (Dkt. 52).
Also on May 16, 2017, the Court entered Orders directing Plaintiff to show cause by May
30, 2017, why Defendants Ken Doka and Jonathan Kilege should not be dismissed from this
action for Plaintiff’s failure to serve Defendants Doka and Kilege in accordance with Fed.
R. Civ. P. 4(m) (Dkts. 53 & 54). On May 25, 2016, the Orders were returned by the United
States Postal Service, marked “Return to Sender, Attempted - Not Known, Unable to
Forward” (Dkt. 55 at 2). As of the entry of this Order, Plaintiff has not advised the Court of
his current address, as required by the Court’s local rule:
All papers shall contain the name, mailing address, daytime telephone number,

fax number, and e-mail address, if any, of the attorney or pro se litigant. If any
of this information changes, the attorney or pro se litigant must notify the
Court by filing the form provided by the Clerk and serving a copy on opposing
counsel or pro se parties. . . .”
Local Civil Rule 5.6(a). Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Civil Rule 5.6(a),
this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See United States ex rel.
Geminis v. Health Net, Inc., 400 F.3d 853, 854-56 (10th Cir. 2005) (dismissing appeal sua
sponte for failure to prosecute because appellant disappeared and failed to meet court
deadlines).
ACCORDINGLY, this action is, in all respects, DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of July 2017.

2