Kratt v. United States of America

Filing 8

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 1/20/12. (Anderson, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FRED KRATT,
Defendant.

)
(
(
)
)
(
(
)
)
(
(
)
)
(
(
)
)
(
(
)
)
(
)
(

Cv. No. 11-2290-STA-tmp
Cr. No. 05-20080-JDB
Cr. No. 05-20368-JDB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On April 13, 2011, Defendant Fred Kratt, Bureau of
Prisons (“BOP”) register number 10600-042, who was, at the time, an
inmate at the Federal Prison Camp located at the Maxwell Air Force
Base in Montgomery, Alabama, filed a pro se motion pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255, accompanied by a motion seeking leave to file a 53page legal memorandum. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) On April 20, 2011, the
Court granted leave to file excess pages. (ECF No. 3.) On May 5,
2011, Defendant’s copy of that order was returned by the post
office as undeliverable. (ECF No. 4.) Defendant had apparently been
transferred to a residential re-entry center. According to the BOP
website, Defendant was released from custody on October 14, 2011.
He has not communicated with the Court since the filing of this
action.

The Court issued an order on December 13, 2011, directing
Defendant to advise the Court within fourteen (14) days whether he
intends to pursue this matter. (ECF No. 5.) The order further
stated that, “[i]f Defendant fails to respond to this motion, the
Court will dismiss the case without prejudice for failure to
prosecute, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” (Id.
at 2.) A copy of that order was mailed to Defendant at his last
known home address, which was obtained from the presentence report.
Defendant has not responded to the December 13, 2011,
order, and the time for a response has expired. Defendant’s copy of
the order was returned by the post office on January 3, 2012, with
a notation that the mailing was “NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED” and
that the post office was “UNABLE TO FORWARD.” (ECF No. 6 at 3.)
It is the most basic responsibility of a litigant to
provide the Court with his current address. Because Defendant has
failed to do so, it appears that he has abandoned this action.
Therefore, the Court DISMISSES the action without prejudice for
failure to prosecute, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b). Judgment shall be entered for Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of January, 2012.

s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2