Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Redden v. Raymond, 3:19-cv-00163 JM-PSH. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas Number: infdco20191023838 Visitors: 15
Filed: Oct. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 22, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES M. MOODY, JR. , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Darrell Anthony Redden filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. 1983 action (Doc. No. 1) while confined at the Craighead County Detention Facility. The Court ordered service on the defendants and they have answered. See Doc. Nos. 4 & 9. On October 3, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this case due to Redden's failure to prosecute the case (Doc. No. 13). Defendant's counsel states that correspondence to Redden has been returned
More

ORDER

Plaintiff Darrell Anthony Redden filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action (Doc. No. 1) while confined at the Craighead County Detention Facility. The Court ordered service on the defendants and they have answered. See Doc. Nos. 4 & 9. On October 3, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this case due to Redden's failure to prosecute the case (Doc. No. 13). Defendant's counsel states that correspondence to Redden has been returned as undelivered. See Doc. No. 15. Defendants' motion to dismiss was mailed to Redden at his last known address, the Craighead County Detention Facility. See Doc. No. 13 at 2.

On October 3, 2019, the Court entered a text order allowing Redden 14 days to respond to the defendants' motion to dismiss. See Doc. No. 16. A printed version of the text order was mailed to Redden at his last known address. On October 16, 2019, the envelope containing the text order could not be delivered to Redden at the Craighead County Detention Facility, and the envelope was returned to the Clerk of the Court with the notation "not in jail" and entered on the docket. See Doc. No. 18.

More than 14 days have passed since the defendants filed their motion to dismiss, and Redden has not filed a response. Redden also failed to notify the Clerk and the other parties to the proceedings of a change in his address as required by Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) and this Court's Initial Order for Pro Se Prisoner-Plaintiffs (Doc. No. 2). Accordingly, the Court finds that this action should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). See Miller v. Benson, 51 F.3d 166, 168 (8th Cir. 1995) (District courts have inherent power to dismiss sua sponte a case for failure to prosecute, and exercise of that power is reviewed for abuse of discretion).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 13) is granted, and Redden's complaint (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer