GOKCE v. TURKISH REPUBLIC

MARY THEILER, Magistrate Judge

On May 6, 2008, plaintiff Irfan Gokce submitted to the Court for review a proposed civil rights complaint in which he alleged that United States immigration authorities improperly obtained legal and personal information about plaintiff from Turkish, Canadian, and Austrian authorities which was used to deny his application for political asylum. ( See Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff failed to submit either the $350 filing fee or an application for leave to proceed with this action in forma pauperis with his complaint. Accordingly, on May 8, 2008, the Clerk sent plaintiff a letter advising him that he would have to submit either the entire filing fee or an application for in forma pauperis status on or before June 9, 2008, and that his failure to do so could result in dismissal of his case. (Dkt. No. 3.) On May 15, 2008, the Clerk's letter to plaintiff was returned as undeliverable with a notation indicating that plaintiff was no longer at the address provided by him in his complaint. (Dkt. No. 4.)

Because mail directed to plaintiff in other pending actions had not been returned, the Clerk, on June 12, 2008, sent plaintiff a second letter advising him of his failure to meet the filing fee requirement and advising him that he would have to correct the deficiency on or before July 14, 2008, or this action would be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 5.) It is not known whether plaintiff ever received this second letter. Assuming plaintiff is no longer confined at the Northwest Detention Center and therefore did not receive the letter, this action is subject to dismissal because plaintiff failed to advise the Court of any new address within sixty days of the date the Clerk's first letter was returned. See Local Rule CR 41(b)(2). Assuming plaintiff did receive the letter, this action is subject to dismissal because plaintiff failed to comply with the Clerk's directive that he either pay the filing fee or submit an application for in forma pauperis status.

As plaintiff has had ample time to either advise the Court of a new address and/or to comply with the filing fee requirement, but has done neither, this Court recommends that the instant action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. A proposed Order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.