Johnson v. City of Syracuse Department of Neighborhood & Business Development

Opinion

ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Case No. 24-cv-1838-BAS-DTF

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

OF NEIGHBORHOOD & BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, ATEM FARMS, Defendants.

On October 11, 2024, Plaintiff Robert W. Johnson, proceeding pro se, commenced this action. (ECF No. 1.) The same day, Plaintiff also filed an application seeking leave to proceed without prepaying fees or costs, also known as proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.) A month later, the Court denied Johnson’s application to proceed IFP because he did not provide information as to how he obtains the necessities of life, instead marking all values for his income as $0.00. (ECF No. 3.) The Court ordered Johnson to either pay the filing fee or file a new request to proceed IFP. (Id. at 3.) However, the Order denying Johnson IFP status was returned as undeliverable to this Court. (ECF No. 4.) Last month, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute because Plaintiff did not update his address. (ECF No. 6.) The Order to Show Cause informed Johnson that the Civil Local Rules of this district require pro se litigants to keep the court apprised of their current address. (See id. 1-2 (citing CivLR 83.11(b)).) The Order to Show Cause gave Johnson until March 12, 2025, to update his address or risk dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. Once again, the Order was returned as undeliverable to this Court. (ECF No. 7.) Meanwhile, the deadline has come and gone yet Plaintiff has filed no response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. Precedent supports a dismissal of a case when a litigant does not keep the court apprised of his address. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming lower court and finding no abuse of discretion when district court dismissed case without prejudice after pro se plaintiff did not comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs keep court apprised of addresses at all times); see also Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal of case brought in pro per where the pro per litigant failed to prosecute and comply with the local rules of the court); see also Hickman v. Cnty. of Butte, 586 F. App’x 285, 286 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming a lower court’s dismissal of a case where the pro se litigant failed to keep the district court informed of his current address, in violation of a local rule, and the district court dismissed the case). Consequently, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action. The Clerk of Court shall close the case. DATED: April 7, 2025 yatta Bahar □□ Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 54 United States District Court

4.