Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges

STEPHEN BROOKS, 126108, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS DIINA, 1st Deputy Superintendent, T. LOVE, Chief Administrati

RICHARD J. ARCARA

DECISION AND ORDER

Plaintiff has filed this pro se action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C.s 1983. It now appears that the Court does not have plaintiff's current address. Mail sent to plaintiff on October 15, 2012 was returned to the Court marked undeliverable on October 19, 2012. Based on this information, it appears that plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with an address where papers may be served.

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) requires that a party proceeding pro se "must furnish the Court with a current address at which papers may be served on the litigant. ... In addition, the Court must have a current address at all times. Thus a pro se litigant must notify the Court immediately in writing of any change of address. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of the case with prejudice." Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d).

Accordingly, plaintiff is directed to provide the Court with an address where papers may be served by November 14, 2012 or the case will be dismissed with prejudice without further order of the Court.

If plaintiff fails to provide an address by November 14, 2012, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case as dismissed with prejudice without further order of the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________


HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA


DISTRICT JUDGE


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Brooks v. Diina
(Nov 1, 2012)