Pittman v. Belew et al
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen on 4/11/18. (mbm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
MONTE BELEW, CAPTAIN PAGE,
SOPHIA HOKEM, MEDICAL, and
HENRY COUNTY FACILITY,
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE
On June 21, 2016, when Plaintiff, Michael Pittman, filed his pro se complaint in this
action, he was incarcerated at the Henry County Jail in Paris, Tennessee. (Case Number
(“No.”) 1:16-cv-01170-JDB-cgc, Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 1.)1 Since then, other cases filed by
Pittman in this district have been screened and judgements entered.2 On November 10, 2016,
in Pittman v. Cox, copies of the screening order dismissing Pittman’s complaint and judgment
were both returned as undeliverable by the Henry County Jail, with the mailing envelopes
Hereinafter, citations to documents filed in No. 1:16-cv-01170-JDB-cgc will not
contain the case number, and citations to other dockets will contain their corresponding case
On July 15, 2016, Pittman was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the
present action. (D.E. 5.) Afterward, four other cases also filed by Plaintiff in this district
were dismissed “as frivolous or for failure to state a claim,” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). (Pittman v. Henry Cty., No. 1:15-cv-02705-JDT-cgc, D.E. 12 at PageID 56-57 &
n.3 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 10, 2018).) Thus, the inmate is “barred from filing any further actions
in forma pauperis while he is a prisoner within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h) unless
he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.” (Id., D.E. 12 at PageID 56.) Because
judgments in those four separate cases were entered after Pittman was granted pauper status
in this case, he is not barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h) from having this matter fully
litigated. (Id., D.E. 12 at PageID 56 & n.3.)
bearing identical “RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED
UNABLE TO FORWARD” labels and “RETURN TO SENDER” stamps beside handwritten
“RTS Not Here” notes. (No. 1:15-cv-01290-JDT-egb, D.E. 11 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 10, 2016).)
Similarly, on the same day in two other cases both filed by Pittman against Henry County,
copies of several more court orders were also returned by the Henry County Jail as
undeliverable, with the same markings on the returned envelopes. (No. 1:15-cv-01284-JDTegb, D.E. 12 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 10, 2016); No. 1:15-cv-01262-JDT-egb, D.E. 16 (W.D. Tenn.
Nov. 10, 2016).) Most recently, in February and March 2018, mail was returned again in a
fourth case filed by Pittman against Henry County. (No. 1:15-cv-02705-JDT-cgc, D.E. 15
(W.D. Tenn. Mar. 8, 2018); id., D.E. 14 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2018).) Thus, it appears that
Pittman has either been released or transferred from the Henry County Jail.
The most basic responsibility of a litigant is to keep the Court advised of his
whereabouts. Therefore, because Plaintiff appears to no longer be at the Henry County Jail
and because he has failed to notify the Court of his new address, he is hereby ORDERED to
show cause, within twenty-one days from the date of this order, why this case should not be
dismissed for failure “to prosecute or to comply with the [Federal] [R]ules [of Civil
Procedure] or a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. Failure to respond to this order in a timely
manner or to show sufficient cause will result in the dismissal of this case without further
notice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of April 2018.
s/ J. DANIEL BREEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?