United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MICHAEL B. NORTH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
U.S.C. §1983 proceeding was filed in forma
pauperis by pro se Plaintiff, Christopher John
Vizier, against Defendants, some five correctional officials
and health care providers who are affiliated with the
Lafourche Parish Detention Center (“LPDC”) in
Thibodaux, Louisiana. (Rec. docs. 4, pp. 1, 2; 4-1, pp. 1, 4;
6) Plaintiff, an inmate of LPDC at the time that suit was
filed, complained of the adequacy of the medical care that he
received subsequent to a slip-and-fall that he allegedly
suffered at that facility on October 6, 2017. (Rec. docs. 4,
p. 2; 4-1, p. 4-5).
service was effected in this matter, two of the named
Defendants moved for an extension of time to plead. (Rec.
doc. 15). That motion was granted on February 26, 2018 and a
copy of that order that was mailed to Plaintiff at LPDC was
returned to the Court as undeliverable on March 19, 2018 with
a notation that he had “[b]onded” out. (Rec. doc.
18). Two additional pieces of Court-generated mail that were
sent to Plaintiff at LPDC have also been returned as
undeliverable due to the fact that he is “no longer
[t]here.” (Rec. docs. 22, 23). It has now been over 35
days since the first of those undeliverable pieces of mail
was returned to the Court and no address correction has been
made by Plaintiff. In the meantime, two of the named
Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss to which
no memorandum in opposition has been forthcoming from by
Plaintiff despite the passing of the noticed submission date.
(Rec. doc. 17).
Rule 11.1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[e]ach
attorney and pro se litigant has a continuing obligation to
promptly notify the court of any address …
change.” The practical considerations that the Local
Rule was intended to address were touched upon by the Fifth
Circuit years ago, as follows:
“It is neither feasible nor legally required that the
clerks of the district courts undertake independently to
maintain current addresses on all parties to pending actions.
It is incumbent upon litigants to inform the court of address
changes, for it is manifest that communications between the
clerk and the parties or their counsel will be conducted
principally by mail. In addition to keeping the clerk
informed of any change of address, parties are obliged to
make timely status inquiries. Address changes normally would
be reflected by those inquiries if made in writing.”
State v. Shannon, No. 87-CV-3951, 1988 WL 54768 at
*1 (E.D. La. May 23, 1988) (quoting Perkins v. King,
No. 84-3310, slip. op. at *4 (5th Cir. May 19,
put, Local Rule 11.1 imposes an affirmative obligation on
parties like Vizier to keep the Court apprised of their
current mailing addresses and relieves court personnel of
that burden. See Lewis v. Hardy, 248
Fed.Appx. 589, 593 n. 1 (5th Cir. 2007), cert.
denied, 552 U.S. 1246, 128 S.Ct. 1479 (2008); St.
Juniors v. Burgess, No. 15-CV-0350, 2016 WL 4368230
(E.D. La. Aug. 16, 2016); Thomas v. Parker, No.
07-CV-9450, 2008 WL 782547 (E.D. La. Mar. 19, 2008);
Batiste v. Gusman, No. 07-CV-1136, 2007 WL 1852026
(E.D. La. June 26, 2007). Local Rule 41.3.1 further provides
that “[t]he failure of a … pro se litigant to
notify the court of a current postal address may be
considered cause for dismissal for failure to prosecute when
a notice is returned to the court because of an incorrect
address and no correction is made to the address for a period
of 35 days from the return.” Finally, pursuant to Rule
41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an action may
be dismissed based on the failure of a plaintiff to prosecute
his case or to comply with a court order. Larson v.
Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998);
Lopez v. Aransas County Independent School District,
570 F.2d 541 (5th Cir. 1978).
noted above, Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court apprised
of a current mailing address as required by Local Rule 11.1.
Plaintiff acknowledged his obligation in that regard when he
signed his complaint, the sixth page of which contains a
declaration, sworn to by him under penalty of perjury in
substantial conformity with 28 U.S.C. §1746, that
“I understand that if I am released or transferred, it
is my responsibility to keep the Court informed of my
whereabouts and [the] failure to do so may result in this
action being dismissed with prejudice.” (Rec. doc. 4-1,
p. 6). Plaintiff's inaction in this regard has deprived
the Court of the ability to communicate with him and,
consequently, to advance his case on the docket. As Vizier is
proceeding pro se in this matter, this failure is
attributable to him alone. Accordingly, it will be
recommended that Plaintiff's lawsuit be dismissed for
failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.,
and Local Rule 41.3.1.
foregoing reasons, it is recommended that Plaintiff's
lawsuit be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to
Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and Local Rule 41.3.1.
party's failure to file written objections to the
proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained
in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within
14 days after being served with a copy shall bar that party,
except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal
the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal
conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the
party has been served with notice that such consequences will
result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United
States Auto. Assoc, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir.