Arroyo v. Li et al

Filing 117

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Based on the present circumstances, dismissal of this action without prejudicefor failure to prosecute is warranted. However, in the event that Arroyo provides this Court with his current address within a reasonable time period, this determination will be reconsidered. An appropriate Order will enter.Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 7/9/15. (cc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DI STR ICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WILFREDO ARROYO ,
Pla intiff

v.

CIVIL NO. 3 :C V-1 3 -15 06

FILED
SCRANTO

(Jud ge Conaboy)

DOC TOR LI , ET AL .,
Defendants

JUL 1 0 2015
PER

MEMORANDUM

Background

This

Q£Q

en

--~D~E~UTY ~L--+--P~~~C E

se civil rights action was fi led by Wi l fre do Ar r oyo

while he was confined at the State Co rrecti onal Institution ,
Frackville Penns ylva nia

(SC I-Frackvil le) .

According to the Amended

Compl aint , Plaintiff developed a " brain d isab l ing U drug indu ced
cond ition called tar dive dyskinesia bec au se o f the Defend ant s '
del i b er ate ind ifferenc e . 1

Doc . 60 ~ I V.

By Memorandum and Order dated Au g ust 15 , 2014 ,

Def endant s

Sterling an d Palmigiano ' s joint motion t o dismiss was g ranted . An
August 25, 2014 Memorandum and Order denied a motion t o dismi ss by
Defendant Psychiatr ist Doctor In g ri d Li.

An August 28 ,

2014

Memo randum and Order partially granted a motion to dismiss filed by
Defe ndant SC I - Frac kville Health Care Adm ini strato r V. St anish efski .
See Doc . 94 .

1 . The symptoms o f that conditio n in clude continuous mus cle spasms
o f the neck, back , and shou lde rs. After three (3) o utside
neurologists and four (4) othe r physicians di agnosed h im with
tar dive dyskinesia p l ainti ff purportedly und e r went treatment with
botox inj ections and medications .
1

By letter docketed September 29, 2014, Arroyo notified this
Court that he had been transferred to a Community Corrections
ient Center in Philadelphia, Penns

l

vania.

See Doc. 105.

Plaintiff's motion seeking reconsideration of the August 28,
Memorandum and Order was denied by
Doc. 115.

A copy

0

that decision

2014

r dated June 19, 2015.

See

ch was mailed to Plaintiff at

his last known address was returned as undeliverable with a
notation that the mailing could not

forwarded.

A

ew of the

rtment of Corrections electronic database indicates only that
Arroyo has been pa

and provides no forwarding address.
Discussion

A copy of
PIa

s Court's Standing Practice Order was mailed to

iff on June 5, 2013.

See Doc. 7.

The Standing Practice

r provides in relevant part as follows:
A pro se pIa ntiff has the affirmative obligation to keep
the court informed of his or her current address.
If the
plaintiff
s his or her address while this lawsuit is
being liti
, the plaintiff shall immediately inform the
court of the
, in writi
f the court is unable to
communicate with the plaintiff
ause the plaint ff has
failed to noti
the court of h s or her address the
plaintiff will be deemed to
abandoned the lawsuit .
. , p.

4.

M.D. Pa. Local Rule 83.18 s

larly provides
to keep the court informed

1 tigant has an affirmative obli

ately inform the court if his

of his or her address and must

s in the course of the litigation.

or her address

aintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with an

When a
order of court,

smissal of his action is appropriate.

See

ral Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.,
370 U.S. 626,

629 (1962).

Although Arroyo has apparently left the

2

Comw~unity

Corrections inpatient Center, he has not

sed this

r his release from that facility nor provided it wi

Court of ei

ss.

his current

Consequently, he

Rule 83.18.

with the requirements of
ion, Arroyo

In

not made any

September, 2014.

this matter s

s clearly failed to comply

lings

Based upon

soever

e circumstances,

it appears that Plaintiff is no longer interested in pursuing his
ims against the two Remaining De

surviving

s, Doctor L

and Health Care Administrator Stanishefski.
Moreover, Arroyo's failure has prevented this matter from
proceeding.

lity of this Court to communicate with

The i

Plaintiff is solely the result of his own inaction and renders
smissal of the action.

ffective any sanction short of
Poulis v. State Farm, 747 F. 2d 863

Cir. 1984).

See

Since Arroyo's

present whereabouts are unknown, it would be a waste of judicial
resources to allow this action to continue.
present circumstances,

on

Bas

ce for

without prej

ssal of this action

lure to prosecute is warranted.

However,

in the event that Arroyo provides this Court with his current
address within a reasonable time period, this determination will be
reconsidered.

An appropriate Order will enter.

~LLl£ (i.

t tiC te tuL

RICHARD P. CONABOY
United States District Judge

-"

DATED: JULY

tl ttt

I ,

2015

3

(