Mahone v. Adduci et al
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MICHAEL A. MAHONE
JON ADDUCI, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10cv693
Michael A. Mahone, formerly an inmate confined within the
Bureau of Prisons, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled
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
disposition of cases.
Anthony v. Marion County General Hospital,
617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980).
See also McCullough v.
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
The exercise of the power to dismiss for failure to
prosecute is committed to the sound discretion of the court and
discretion was abused.
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.
He has therefore failed to
This matter should therefore be
For the reasons set forth above, this matter will be dismissed
without prejudice for want of prosecution.
A final judgment shall
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.
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?