ORDER

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief District Judge.

Plaintiff, William Green, a former inmate confined at the Fayette State Correctional Institution, in LaBelle, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Fayette"), filed the above-captioned action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff set forth constitutional claims based on events that occurred at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, against individuals employed at that facility. (Id.)

On September 28, 2018, mail was returned to the court as "unable to forward", and marked as inmate "paroled." (Doc. 13). In an effort to ascertain the custodial status of plaintiff, the court accessed the Vinelink online inmate locator, which revealed that plaintiff is no longer in custody.1 The court notes that a pro se plaintiff has the affirmative obligation to keep the court informed of his address. (See M.D. Pa. Local Rule of Court 83.18; see also Standing Practice Order in Pro Se Plaintiff Cases). Should an address change in the course of this litigation, the plaintiff shall immediately inform the court of such change, in writing. (Id.) If the court is unable to communicate with the plaintiff because he has failed to notify the court of his address, the plaintiff will be deemed to have abandoned the lawsuit. (Id.)

Plaintiff has not communicated with the court since the filing of his inmate account statement on September 11, 2017. (See Doc. 3). The court's inquiry indicates that plaintiff has been released from SCI-Fayette. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that plaintiff has abandoned this lawsuit.

Accordingly, this 9th day of November, 2018, it is hereby ORDERED that within fifteen (15) days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file with the court his current address. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) ("If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it."); Link v. Wabash R.R. CO., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (interpreting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) as permitting sua sponte dismissals by the court); Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984); see also Donnelly v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 677 F.2d 339, 340-41 (3d Cir. 1982) (holding that a district court may sua sponte dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders).