Lobertini v. Campbell County Jail et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM in support of the following Judgment Order. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 11/18/15. (c/m)(ADA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
WILLIAM LOBERTINI,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAMPBELL COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.:

3:15-cv-359-TAV-HBG

MEMORANDUM
On August 28, 2015, this Court filed an Order of Deficiency [Doc. 3] ordering Plaintiff to
pay the entire filing fee within thirty (30) days or submit the necessary documents to support his
in forma pauperis application. Plaintiff was warned that if he does not comply with this Court’s
order the Court will presume that he does not wish to proceed in this action and that he is not
indigent, will assess the filling fee, and will order the case dismissed for want of prosecution
[Id.]. Plaintiff’s copy of that order, which was mailed to him at his last known address of
Campbell County Jail, 195 Kentucky Street, Jacksboro, Tennessee, was returned undelivered on
September 21, 2015, with the notation “Return to Sender. Refused. Unable to Forward.”
Plaintiff bears the burden of prosecuting his action, which includes informing the Court
of his correct mailing address, and he has not done so. A plaintiff has an affirmative duty to
notify the Court of any change of address. Barber v. Runyon, No. 93-6318, 1994 WL 163765, at
*1 (6th Cir. May 2, 1994) (“If [pro se plaintiff’s] address changed, he had an affirmative duty to
supply the court with notice of any and all changes in his address.”); see also Jourdan v. Jabe,
951 F.2d 108 (6th Cir. 1991) (“[W]hile pro se litigants may be entitled to some latitude when
dealing with sophisticated legal issues . . . there is no cause for extending this margin to

straightforward procedural requirements that a layperson can comprehend.”); Walker v. Cognis
Oleo Chem., LLC, 1:07-cv-289, 2010 WL 717275, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2010) (“By failing
to keep the court appraised of his current address, petitioner demonstrates a lack of prosecution
of his action.”). A plaintiff’s failure to supply the Court with an updated address subjects the
action to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (providing
for dismissal where “the plaintiff fails to prosecute”); see also Kosher v. Butler Cnty. Jail, No.
1:12-cv-51, 2012 WL 4808546, *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 9, 2012) (citing Buck v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric.,
Farmers Home Admin., 960 F.2d 603, 608-09 (6th Cir. 1992)) (“Without such basic information
as a plaintiff’s current address, courts have no recourse but to dismiss a complaint for failure to
prosecute.”).
The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with an updated address and
failed to monitor his case electronically. The Court, therefore, has no way to communicate with
Plaintiff about his case. The Court has no way to knowing a litigant’s mailing address except by
checking the address provided by the litigant and filed on the docket. Any problems arising from
an inability to communicate with Plaintiff is directly attributed to Plaintiff’s failure to update the
docket.
Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED, sua sponte, for failure to prosecute and to
comply with the rules of this Court.
AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER.

s/ Thomas A. Varlan
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2