United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CIVIL
H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
court has before it Plaintiff Jason Richard Eidam's pro
se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, as well as his application to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee. The complaint, which was filed
in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Michigan on June 6, 2017 and transferred to this court
that same day, concerns allegations of sexual harassment and
retaliation while Plaintiff was a state prisoner in Jackson,
Michigan. Plaintiff sues prison officials and seeks
injunctive relief and monetary damages.
Plaintiff filed the complaint, he was confined at the Parnall
Correctional Facility in Jackson. Plaintiff, however, was
released on parole on June 7, 2017. See Offender
Profile, Michigan Department of Corrections Offender Tracking
Information System ("OTIS"),
On July 20, 2017, after the case was transferred, the court
issued a notice regarding Plaintiff's responsibility to
notify the court of address changes. (Dkt. #6.) That notice
was returned as undeliverable on August 18, 2017. (Dkt. #7.)
On August 29, 2017, the court issued a show cause order
requiring Plaintiff to explain why his case should not be
dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. (Dkt.
#8.) That order was returned as undeliverable on September
12, 2017. (Dkt. #9.) Plaintiff has not contacted the court
nor provided updated contact information since he filed his
complaint, and the court has no known address for him.
11.2 of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan
authorizes the court to dismiss a case based upon a
party's failure to keep the court apprised of address
changes and updated contact information. The rule states:
Every attorney and every party not represented by an attorney
must include his or her contact information consisting of his
or her address, e-mail address, and telephone number on the
first paper that person files in a case. If there is a change
in the contact information, that person promptly must file
and serve a notice with the new contact information. The
failure to file promptly current contact information may
subject that person or party to appropriate sanctions, which
may include dismissal, default judgment, and costs.
E.D. Mich. L.R. 11.2. Pro se litigants have the same
obligation as an attorney to notify the court of a change of
address. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th
Cir.1988). “‘[Petitioner] has the duty to inform
the court of any address changes, and it is not incumbent
upon this Court or its staff to keep track of
Petitioner's current address.” Thompkins v.
Metrish, No. 2:07-CV-12; 2009 WL 2595604, *1 n. 1 (W.D.
Mich. Aug. 20, 2009) (quoting Kelly v. Wal-Mart,
Inc., No. 7:07-CV-0089; 2007 WL 2847068, *1 (N.D. N.Y.
Sept. 26, 2007)).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a federal
court to dismiss a case based upon the “failure of the
plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any
order of the court . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), and
Rule 41.2 of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of
Michigan authorizes the court to dismiss a case “when
it appears that . . . the parties have taken no action for a
reasonable time.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 41.2. The court may
thus dismiss a civil action for failure to prosecute pursuant
to those rules. See Mulbah v. Detroit Board of
Education, 261 F.3d 586, 589 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)).
noted, Plaintiff's case was transferred to this Court on
June 6, 2017. The court subsequently sent Plaintiff a notice
advising him of Local Rule 11.2 and his duty to inform the
court of any change of address. That notice stated that the
failure to provide updated contact information could result
in dismissal of his case. (See Dkt. #6.) The court
also issued a show cause order requiring Plaintiff to explain
why his case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
That order similarly stated that the failure to respond and
provide updated contact information could result in dismissal
of his case. (See Dkt. #8.) Plaintiff has a duty to
provide the court with his current address or risk dismissal
of his case. See Watsy v. Richards, No. 86-1856,
1987 WL 37151 (6th Cir. April 20, 1987).
record indicates that Plaintiff was released on parole on
June 7, 2017 and that he has not updated his address or
otherwise communicated with the court since he filed his
complaint more than three months ago. Plaintiff has thus
failed to comply with Local Rule 11.2 and the court's
notice. The court will therefore dismiss this case without
prejudice for want of prosecution based upon his failure to
do so. See, e.g., White v. City of Grand Rapids, 34
F. App'x 210, 211 (6th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of
complaint for want of prosecution based upon failure to
provide current address); Harkleroad v. Astrue, No.
4:03-cv-15, 2011 WL 3627161, *3 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2011)
(“Indeed, dismissal for failure to prosecute may be
appropriate when a pro se plaintiff fails to keep the court
apprised of her current address.”); Brown v.
White, No. 2:09-CV-12902, 2010 WL 1780954, *1 (E.D.
Mich. Apr. 30, 2010) (dismissing habeas case based upon
failure to provide current contact information and failure to
exhaust state court remedies).
upon the foregoing discussion, the court DISMISSES
WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's civil rights
complaint. Given this determination, the court makes no
ruling on Plaintiff's application to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee and DISMISSES WITHOUT
PREJUDICE that application.