Summary
The court recommends dismissing a pro se prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute. The recommendation follows the return of the screening order, the plaintiff’s failure to update his address or respond, and the expiration of the time to elect how to proceed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the action should be dismissed because the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
- Whether the action should be dismissed for failure to prosecute after plaintiff failed to respond to the screening order and failed to provide a current address as required by Local Rule 183(b).
Holdings
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute because plaintiff did not notify the court of his current address within the period required by Local Rule 183(b) and did not respond to the screening order.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal because the previously screened complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and plaintiff did not file an amended complaint.
Key quotations
“Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior address of the pro se party shall be fully effective.” (at 1)
“If a pro se plaintiff fails to notify the court of a current address within thirty (30) days after mail directed to that plaintiff is returned, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” (at 1)
Factual background
Jeffrey Dickerson, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After screening, the court determined that his complaint failed to state a claim and gave him the option to file an amended complaint. The screening order was returned as undeliverable, and Dickerson did not update his address, elect how to proceed, file an amended complaint, or otherwise respond.
Procedural history
The court screened plaintiff's complaint on April 17, 2025, found it deficient, and granted leave to amend while warning that failure to amend could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The screening order was returned by the Postal Service on April 29, 2025. Plaintiff did not provide an updated address or otherwise respond within the required period, so the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending dismissal.