Wooten v. Knox County Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 12/28/16. (c/m) (JBR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
JEFFERY WILLARD WOOTEN, #85742,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID AMBURN, Lieutenant,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.:

3-15-CV-177-TAV-HBG

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This prisoner’s pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is before the Court upon
the postal return of court correspondence mailed to Plaintiff at the address he listed as his current
address in his complaint [Doc. 18]. The correspondence was returned to the Court by the postal
authorities more than fourteen days ago, with the face of the envelope marked, “Return to
Sender, Unable to Forward” and “No Longer at This Address” [Id.].
Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with notice of his correct address and, without his
correct and current address, neither the Court nor Defendant can communicate with him
regarding his case. In fact, Local Rule 83.13 not only requires pro se litigants, such as Plaintiff,
to file a written notice with the Clerk, but also requires written notice to be given to all parties,
within fourteen days of any change of address. E.D. Tenn. L.R. 83.13.
Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED, sua sponte, for want of prosecution. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (recognizing court’s
authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of prosecution); White v. City of Grand Rapids, 34
F. App’x 210, 211(6th Cir. 2002) (finding that a pro se prisoner’s complaint “was subject to

dismissal for want of prosecution because he failed to keep the district court apprised of his
current address”); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108 (6th Cir. 1991).
Defendant’s pending Motion to Dismiss is now MOOT and will be DENIED [Doc. 19].
AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER.

s/ Thomas A. Varlan
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2