Filed: Jan. 27, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 27, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION ANNE E. THOMPSON , District Judge . 1. On October 21, 2015, Brian Keith Bragg, submitted a civil complaint alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 by various employees of the Mercer County Correctional Center ("MCCC"), including its warden, Charles Ellis. (Docket Entry 1). The Court granted his application to proceed in forma pauperis and directed the Clerk to file the complaint. (Docket Entry 2). 2. On December 8, 2015, Plaintiff fi
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION ANNE E. THOMPSON , District Judge . 1. On October 21, 2015, Brian Keith Bragg, submitted a civil complaint alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 by various employees of the Mercer County Correctional Center ("MCCC"), including its warden, Charles Ellis. (Docket Entry 1). The Court granted his application to proceed in forma pauperis and directed the Clerk to file the complaint. (Docket Entry 2). 2. On December 8, 2015, Plaintiff fil..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ANNE E. THOMPSON, District Judge.
1. On October 21, 2015, Brian Keith Bragg, submitted a civil complaint alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by various employees of the Mercer County Correctional Center ("MCCC"), including its warden, Charles Ellis. (Docket Entry 1). The Court granted his application to proceed in forma pauperis and directed the Clerk to file the complaint. (Docket Entry 2).
2. On December 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, alleging that since the filing of his complaint, he has been subjected to threats of violence by MCCC staff and inmates. (Docket Entry 4 ¶¶ 3-6) . Plaintiff alleged Warden Ellis was non-responsive to his requests for protection. (Docket Entry 4 ¶ 7).
3. On December 9, 2015, this Court, having screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, permitted the complaint to proceed in part and ordered summonses issued. (Docket Entries 5 and 6).
4. On January 21, 2016, counsel for Defendants informed the Court that Plaintiff was released from MCCC on January 19, 2016. Defendants are unaware of Plaintiff's present mailing address. (Docket Entry 23).
5. Local Civil Rule 10.1(a) requires unrepresented parties to notify the Court of any change in address within 7 days. The Rule further provides that, failure to file such notice "may result in the imposition of sanctions by the Court." Id. Indeed, failure to apprise the Court of an address change may result in the outright dismissal of the case for failure to proceed, or an administrative termination of the action without prejudice. See, e.g., Boretsky v. Corzine, No. 08-2265, 2008 WL 2512916 (D.N.J. June 23, 2008); Allebach v. Cathell, No. 06-5005, 2009 wt 2147145 (D.N.J. July 15, 2009).
6. More than 7 days have passed since Plaintiff was released from the MCCC. Plaintiff has not updated his address within that timeframe.
7. As the Court does not have a current address for Plaintiff, the matter cannot proceed at this time. The Court will therefore administratively terminate the proceedings without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to reinstate this action by notifying the Court and Defendant of his new address within 30 days.
8. Failure to provide an updated address within 30 days of the date of this Order may result in the matter being dismissed for lack of prosecution.
9. An appropriate Order follows.
