Trammell v. Elkin, 4:18-cv-04124. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20181109b82
Visitors: 16
Filed: Nov. 07, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 07, 2018
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY , District Judge . Plaintiff Maurice Trammell filed this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action pro se and in forma pauperis ("IFP") on August 30, 2018. (ECF No. 1). 1 Before the Court is Plaintiff's failure to keep the Court informed of his current address. On October 1, 2018, mail sent to Plaintiff at his address of record was returned to the Court as undeliverable marked "RTS RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED—NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD." (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff's last communicati
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY , District Judge . Plaintiff Maurice Trammell filed this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action pro se and in forma pauperis ("IFP") on August 30, 2018. (ECF No. 1). 1 Before the Court is Plaintiff's failure to keep the Court informed of his current address. On October 1, 2018, mail sent to Plaintiff at his address of record was returned to the Court as undeliverable marked "RTS RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED—NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD." (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff's last communicatio..
More
ORDER
SUSAN O. HICKEY, District Judge.
Plaintiff Maurice Trammell filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se and in forma pauperis ("IFP") on August 30, 2018. (ECF No. 1).1 Before the Court is Plaintiff's failure to keep the Court informed of his current address.
On October 1, 2018, mail sent to Plaintiff at his address of record was returned to the Court as undeliverable marked "RTS RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED—NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD." (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff's last communication with the Court was on September 4, 2018, when he filed a Supplement to his Complaint. (ECF No. 8). In addition, more than thirty days have passed since mail sent to Plaintiff's address of record was returned and Plaintiff has failed to inform the Court of his current address.
Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a pro se litigant is not excused from complying with substantive and procedural law. Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984). Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) states in pertinent part:
It is the duty of any party not represented by counsel to promptly notify the Clerk and the other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her address, to monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently. . . If any communication from the Court to a pro se plaintiff is not responded to within thirty (30) days, the case may be dismissed without prejudice. Any party proceeding pro se shall be expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).
Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court informed of his current address. Therefore, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), the Court finds that this case should be dismissed. Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. That same day, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP and informed Plaintiff that he was required to notify the Court of any change of address and that failure to do so within thirty (30) days of being released or transferred would subject this case to dismissal. (ECF No. 3).
Source: Leagle
