Marquis L. Kimble v. Swanton Police Department, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
• Decided: December 16, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-01810
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Marquis L. Kimble, Case No. 3:25-cv-1810

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

Swanton Police Department, et al.,

Defendants.

On November 20, 2025, I issued an Order denying pro se Plaintiff Marquis L. Kimble’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. No. 2), and ordering him to pay the filing fee of $405 within thirty (30) days of that Order to avoid dismissal of this action without additional notice. (Doc. No. 10). A copy of the Order was mailed to Plaintiff at the address he had provided to the Court: 2034 Austin Bluffs Court, Toledo, OH 43615. (See Nov. 20, 2025 remark regarding pro se service). A previous Order had been mailed to this address and was not returned undeliverable. (See Doc. No. 7 and Oct. 2, 2025 remark regarding pro se service). But my November 20, 2025 Order was returned to the Court as “no mail receptacle” and “unable to forward.” (Doc. No. 11). It is well-settled that a pro se litigant “has an affirmative duty to notify the Court of any change in address.” Oesch v. Ohio Dep’t of Corr., No. 2:19-cv-1758, 2019 WL 2289836, at *1 (S.D. Ohio May 29, 2019). See also Barber v. Runyon, No. 93-6318, 1994 WL 163765, at *1 (6th Cir. May 2, 1994) (“If [pro se Plaintiff’s] address changed, she had an affirmative duty to supply the court with notice of any and all changes in her address.”); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) (“[W]hile pro se litigants may be entitled to some latitude when dealing with sophisticated legal issues ... there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural requirements that a layperson can comprehend.”); Walker v. Cognis Oleo Chem., LLC, No. 1:07cv289, 2010 WL 717275, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2010) (“By failing to keep the Court apprised of his current address, Plaintiff demonstrates a lack of prosecution of his action.”). Based on the returned mail, it appears Plaintiff has failed to fulfill his obligation to notify the Court of a current addressed at which he may receive service of filings in this case. I conclude this

failure demonstrates a lack of prosecution and dismiss this case without prejudice. Should Plaintiff seek to reopen this case, he must pay the filing fee of $405 and file a motion to reopen which contains his current address no later than January 9, 2026.

So Ordered.

s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick United States District Judge