Williams v. Nassau County Sheriff's Department et al
| Marlon Williams |
| Nassau County Sheriff's Department, Division of Correction and James Dzurenda |
| 2:2022cv00750 |
| February 7, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Joanna Seybert |
| James M Wicks |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 28, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 CLERK'S JUDGMENT: ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff Marlon Williams take nothing of Defendants Nassau County Sheriffs Department, Division of Correction, and James Dzurenda; that this case is dismissed for failure to prosecute; that in forma pauperis status for the purpose of any appeal is denied; and that this case is closed. Ordered by Clerk of Court on 3/28/2022 (CM to pro se plaintiff with an appeal packet). (Toritto, Jim) |
ORDER DISMISSING CASE: On 2/9/2022, the Clerk of Court sent Plaintiff Marlon Williams (hereafter, "Plaintiff") a NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY informing Plaintiff that if he wished to continue this action, he must either pay the required filing fee or request to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"); an IFP application was included with the NOTICE. (See ECF No. 2.) On 2/23/2022, the NOTICE was returned to the Clerk of Court with a notation on the mailing envelope that Plaintiff was released from the Nassau County Correctional Center, his address of record. (See ECF No. 5.)On 2/18/2022, the Clerk of Court sent a letter to Plaintiff acknowledging receipt of his civil action and advising him, among other things, that the case had been assigned a docket number and a judge (hereafter, the "LETTER"). (See ECF No. 4.) Of significance, the LETTER instructed Plaintiff, "It is your duty to prosecute your case and to keep this office informed of a current mailing address. All Address changes must be submitted in writing. Failure to provide a current mailing address may result in your case being dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)." (See Letter, ECF No. 4.) On 3/7/2022, the LETTER was returned to the Clerk of Court with a notation on the mailing envelope "RETURN TO SENDER INMATE DISCHARGED". (See ECF No. 6.)On 3/2/2022, the Court issued an ELECTRONIC ORDER giving Plaintiff until 3/23/2022 to provide the Court with his current mailing address and to either pay the filing fee or return the IFP application (which the Court sent to Plaintiff again). (See 3/2/2022 Electronic Order.) Among other things, the Court: (1) made clear that it was Plaintiff's obligation to notify the Court of any address change (citing cases), and (2) warned "PLAINTIFF IS ON NOTICE: Failure to timely respond to this Electronic Order will result in this case being DISMISSED without prejudice and without further notice." (See id.) The ELECTRONIC ORDER, together with the IFP application, was mailed to Plaintiff at his address of record the same day; it can be viewed on the Court's Electronic Case Filing system at www.PACER.gov. On 3/17/2022, the ELECTRONIC ORDER was returned to the Court with a notation on the mailing envelope "INMATE DISCHARGED". (See ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff's 3/23/2022 deadline has passed without Plaintiff complying with the Court's ELECTRONIC ORDER; indeed, since 3/17/2022, there has been no activity in this case. (See Case Docket, in toto.) Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. Further, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Electronic Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address of record. This Order can be viewed on the Court's Electronic Case Filing system at www.PACER.gov. Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 3/28/2022. (Killigrew, Patricia)
|
| Filing 7 Mail Returned as Undeliverable; Mail sent to Marlon Williams marked Return to Sender; Inmate Discharged. (Valle, Christine) |
| Filing 6 Mail Returned as Undeliverable; Mail sent to Marlon Williams received marked Return to Sender; Inmate Discharged. (Valle, Christine) |
|
ELECTRONIC ORDER: On February 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court but he did not (1) remit the filing fee, or (2) apply to proceed in forma pauperis. On February 9, 2022, the Court sent Plaintiff a Notice of Deficiency (hereafter, the "Notice") instructing him to either remit the filing fee or to complete and return the enclosed application to proceed in forma pauperis and the required Prisoner Litigation Authorization form. (See ECF No. 2.) On February 23, 2022, the Court's Notice was returned with a handwritten notation on the mailing envelope that Plaintiff was released from incarceration on February 16, 2022. (See ECF No. 5.) The mailing envelope also had a U.S.P.S. return label which stated, among other things, "UNABLE TO FORWARD". (See id.)"The duty to inform the Court and defendants of any change of address is 'an obligation that rests with all pro se plaintiffs.'" Alomar v. Recard, Case No. 07-CV-5654, 2010 WL 451047, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2010) (quoting Handlin v. Garvey, Case No. 91-CV-6777, 1996 WL 673823, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 1996)); see also English v. Azcazubi, Case No. 13-CV-5074, 2015 WL 1298654, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2015) ("[W]hen a party, even a pro se litigant, changes addresses, it is that party's obligation to notify the Court of the new address."); Thornton v. Moroney, Case No. 13-CV-8912, 2014 WL 2805236, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2014) (explaining that pro se litigants have a "duty to diligently pursue [their] case and to inform th[e] Court[]... of any change of address"). As is readily apparent, this case cannot proceed unless the Court and defendants are able to contact Plaintiff. See Pagan v. Westchester County, Case No. 12-CV-7669, 2014 WL 4953583, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2014) ("Absent valid contact information, the Court cannot apprise the plaintiffs of their obligations in or the status of their case, and the litigation cannot proceed without their participation."). If a pro se litigant fails to keep the Court apprised of his current mailing address, "the Court may dismiss the action under Rule 41(b) [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure], for failure to prosecute." Mercedes v. New York D.O.C., Case No. 12-CV-2293, 2013 WL6153208, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2013); see also Thornton, 2014 WL 2805236, at *2.Accordingly, by no later than March 23, 2022, Plaintiff shall: (1) provide the Court, in writing, with a current mailing address; and (2) either remit the $402.00 filing fee or complete and return the enclosed application to proceed in forma pauperis. PLAINTIFF IS ON NOTICE: Failure to timely respond to this Electronic Order will result in this case being DISMISSED without prejudice and without further notice. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Electronic Order to Plaintiff at his address of record and make a notation of same on the docket. Although it will likely be returned, the Electronic Order is also posted on the Court's Electronic Case Filing ("ECF") system, and Plaintiff may view it there.Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 3/2/2022. (Killigrew, Patricia) Modified docket text on 3/2/2022 (Florio, Lisa).
|
| Filing 5 Mail Returned as Undeliverable; Copy of Letter sent to Marlon Williams marked Return to Sender; Released. (Valle, Christine) |
| Filing 4 Letter from Pro Se Office to Pro Se Litigant Marlon Williams dated 2/18/2022 Re: RECEIPT OF CIVIL ACTION(S). (Valle, Christine) |
| Filing 3 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Cox, Dwayne) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF DEFICIENT FILING, litigant notified of deficiency(s) that must be corrected within fourteen (14) days. re: #1 Complaint. The papers are deficient as a filing fee of $402 is required in order to commence a civil action. Alternatively, you may request to waive the filing fee by competing an in forma pauperis (IFP) application. Lastly, you must also complete the Prisoner Autorization (PLRA) form. CM 2/9/22 (Cox, Dwayne) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -No,, filed by Marlon Williams. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Cox, Dwayne) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
