Fullewellen v. City of New York

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E DL OE CC #T :R ONIC ALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 5/25/2 023 LARRY FULLEWELLEN, Plaintiff, 1:21-cv-7219-MKV -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant. MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Larry Fullewellen, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a complaint on August 26, 2021. [ECF No. 1.] The City of New York filed a motion to dismiss on March 14, 2022. [ECF No. 17.] On March 7, 2023, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order, granting the City’s motion to dismiss. [ECF No. 27.] The Court directed Plaintiff to file any amended complaint within 30 days and directed that the Opinion and Order be mailed to the pro se Plaintiff at the address of record. [ECF No. 27.] No amended complaint was filed. Instead, the Memorandum Opinion and Order was returned to this Court as undeliverable because Plaintiff apparently “Transferred State[s].” Because no amended complaint was filed, on April 20, 2023, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, again directing Plaintiff to file “an amended complaint and a letter showing cause why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” [ECF No. 28.] The Court noted that “Plaintiff is on notice that he is ultimately responsible for prosecuting his case, and failure to comply with this Order and to prosecute his case will result in dismissal of this action.” [ECF No. 28.] No letter was filed. Because mail sent to the pro se Plaintiff has been repeatedly returned as undeliverable over the course of this litigation, the Court is unsure if the Plaintiff has received the Memorandum Opinion and Order or, for that matter, any other Orders of this Court. At the start of this litigation, the Court informed the Plaintiff that he “must notify the Court in writing if Plaintiff's address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so.” [ECF No. 6]. Plaintiff has not updated his address, responded to Orders of this Court, or taken any other action to prosecute this case. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute without costs to any party. See LeSane vy. Hall’s Sec. Analyst, Inc., 239 F.3d 206, 209 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962)); see also Anderson v. Annucci, No. 17-CV-07973 (VSB), 2020 WL 1082393, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2020) (dismissing pro se plaintiff's complaint for failure to prosecute after plaintiff failed to update his address on the docket). The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff at the address of record and to close this case.

SO ORDERED. | / ls Date: May 25, 2023 Mey Koy Viahocl New York, NY United States District Judge