Mahone v. Adduci et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. This matter will be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. If plaintiff wishes to have this case reinstated on the court's active docket, he may do so by providing the court with a current address within 60 days. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 10/3/2013. (bjc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION MICHAEL A. MAHONE § VS. § JON ADDUCI, ET AL. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10cv693 MEMORANDUM OPINION Michael A. Mahone, formerly an inmate confined within the Bureau of Prisons, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled lawsuit. Discussion The court previously entered an order granting plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. A copy of the order was sent to plaintiff at the United States Penitentiary at Beaumont, Texas, the address provided to the court by plaintiff. The copy of the order sent to plaintiff was returned to the court with a notation stating plaintiff was no longer at the address provided. Plaintiff has not provided the court with a new address. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action for want of prosecution sua sponte whenever necessary to disposition of cases. achieve the orderly 835 F.2d expeditious Anthony v. Marion County General Hospital, 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980). Lynaugh, and 1126 (5th Cir. See also McCullough v. 1988). The orderly and expeditious disposition of cases requires that if a litigant's address changes, he has a duty to inform the court of the change. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has said It is neither feasible nor legally required that the clerks of the district courts undertake independently to maintain current addresses on all parties to pending actions. It is incumbent upon litigants to inform the court of address changes, for it is manifest that communications between the clerk and the parties or their counsel will be conducted principally by mail. In addition to keeping the clerk informed of any change of address, parties are obliged to make timely status inquiries. Address changes normally would be reflected by those inquiries if made in writing. Shannon v. State of Louisiana, 1988 WL 54768, No. 87-3951 (E.D. La. May 23, 1988) (quoting Perkins v. King, No. 84-3310 (5th Cir. May 19, 1985)); see also Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (pro se plaintiff's case dismissed for failure to prosecute when he failed to keep the court apprised of his current address). The exercise of the power to dismiss for failure to prosecute is committed to the sound discretion of the court and appellate review is discretion was abused. confined solely in whether the court's Green v. Forney Engineering Co., 589 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1979); Lopez v. Aransas County Independent School District, 570 F.2d 541 (5th Cir. 1978). By failing to provide the court with a correct address, plaintiff has prevented the court from communicating with him and moving this case towards resolution. diligently prosecute this case. dismissed. He has therefore failed to This matter should therefore be Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. be entered in accordance with this A final judgment shall memorandum opinion. If plaintiff wishes to have this case reinstated on the court's active docket, he may do so by providing the court with a current address within 60 days of the date set forth below. SIGNED this the 3 day of October, 2013. ____________________________ Thad Heartfield United States District Judge 3

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?