Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. Early

November 25, 2008

ALONZO JONES, PLAINTIFF
v.
LAWERENCE EARLY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sylvia H. Rambo United States District Judge

JUDGE SYLVIA H. RAMBO

MEMORANDUM

Before the court is a motion to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff Alonzo Jones for abandonment of action by Plaintiff, filed on behalf of Defendants, several employees of the Capitol Pavilion Community Corrections Center ("Capitol Pavilion CCC") in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 19.) For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted.

I. Background

On November 21, 2007, Plaintiff, an inmate formerly incarcerated at the Capitol Pavilion CCC, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the Center's medical staff was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. (Doc. 1.) Along with the complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) On December 14, 2007, the court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and directed service of the complaint on the defendants named therein. (Doc. 8.)

On January 31 and February 5, 2008, waivers of service were returned as to all Defendants. (See Docs. 10-11.) In response to the complaint, Defendants filed a motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, claiming that "Plaintiff's complaint is a 10-page jumble of narrative statements interspersed with hand-written numbered paragraphs and pre-printed forms." (Doc. 14.) The court denied the motion on April 15, 2008, and directed Defendants to file an answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's allegations. (Doc. 15.) The court's order was returned as undeliverable as to Plaintiff on April 23, 2008. (See Doc. 16.)

On May 9, 2008, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint. (Doc. 17.) Defendants served Plaintiff with the answer that same day at his address at the Capitol Pavilion CCC. (See Doc. 19, Ex. B.) The answer was returned as undeliverable. (See Doc. 19, Ex. C.)

On August 5, 2008, the court issued a scheduling order which, inter alia, set the deadline for completion of discovery for October 6, 2008. (See Doc. 18.) Defendants served Plaintiff with interrogatories and document requests at the Capitol Pavilion CCC address on September 5, 2008. (See Doc. 19, Ex. D.)

However, these discovery requests were returned as undeliverable. (See Doc. 19, Ex. E.) Defendants sent a courtesy copy of the discovery requests to the address to which Plaintiff had been released from Capitol Pavilion CCC.*fn1 (Doc. 19 at 2.) The cover letter of the discovery requests, dated September 5, 2008, directs Plaintiff to contact Defendants' counsel about scheduling his deposition for this case. (See Doc. 19, Ex. D.) To date, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants' discovery requests or made himself available for a deposition. Further, the time period for discovery has expired.

II. Discussion

Following the initiation of this action, Plaintiff was provided with a copy of this court's Standing Practice Order which provides in relevant part:

A pro se plaintiff has the affirmative obligation to keep the court informed of his or her current address. If the plaintiff changes his or her address while this lawsuit is being litigated, the plaintiff shall immediately inform the court of the change, in writing. If the court is unable to communicate with the plaintiff because the plaintiff has failed to notify the court of his or her address, the plaintiff will be deemed to have abandoned the lawsuit. (Doc. 7 at 5.)

When a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with a court order, the court may dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962).*fn2 In Link, the United States Supreme Court stated:

The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff's action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted. The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts. The power is of ancient origin, having its roots in judgments of non-suit and non prosequitur ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.