Opinion
Case No. 98-CV-1141 (LEK/GLS).
November 5, 1999
JOHN MICHAUD, Plaintiff, Pro Se, Gowanda Correctional Facility, Gowanda, NY, FOR THE PLAINTIFF.
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, Attorney General for the State of New York, The Capitol, Litigation Bureau, OF COUNSEL, G. LAWRENCE DILLON, Asst. Attorney General, Albany, New York, FOR THE DEFENDANT.
ORDER
BACKGROUND
This matter was referred to the undersigned for a Report-Recommendation by the Hon. Lawrence E. Kahn, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Currently before the court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which was filed July 17, 1998. (Dkt. No. 1). This case has an unusual procedural history that is pertinent to this Order.
On August 26, 1998, the undersigned recommended that the petition be deemed abandoned if the petitioner failed to pay the five dollar filing fee within thirty days. (Dkt. No. 4). On October 23, 1998, Judge Kahn approved the Report-Recommendation and dismissed the action. (Dkt. Nos. 5 6). Thereafter, it became clear that the petitioner had actually paid the filing fee within the thirty day deadline set by this court. Consequently, on December 1, 1998, Judge Kahn vacated his October 23, 1998, Decision and ordered the action reopened. (Dkt. No. 7). Very little activity took place in this case for several months until October 15, 1999, when the court received a letter from the defendants stating that the petitioner has been released from custody. It also asked that the petition be dismissed as moot. (Dkt. No. 10). The petitioner has not yet replied to this letter. Furthermore, it is now clear that the plaintiff has not provided the court with his current address.
DISCUSSION
Litigants have a continuing obligation to keep the court informed of any change of address that may occur during the pendency of an action. See N.D.N.Y.L.R. 10(b); Fenza v. Conklin, 177 F.R.D. 126 (N.D.N Y 1998) (Pooler, DJ). Notification of a new address is essential for the orderly disposition of cases as it is not feasible for the court to independently maintain the current addresses of all parties to pending actions. Id. at 127 (citations omitted). Furthermore, Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to dismiss an action for the failure to prosecute or comply with an order of the court. See Williams v. Faulkner, 1998 WL 278288 (N.D.N.Y. May 20, 1998) (Pooler, DJ). Consequently, the petitioner's failure to notify the court of an address change is grounds for dismissal. 177 F.R.D. at 127.
In this case, the petitioner was released from custody but did not inform the court of his current address. As stated, this oversight is a basis for dismissing his petition, however, he acts pro se and may not be aware of his obligations under the Local Rules. Accordingly, the court will allow the petitioner twenty (20) days from the date of this Order's filing to submit his current address. If the petitioner fails to provide his current address within this time, the court will recommend that this action be DISMISSED.
Additionally, because the petitioner has been released, it is possible that he no longer wants to pursue his petition. Therefore, he is also instructed to state whether he intends to pursue or voluntarily discontinue his petition.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the petitioner notify the court of his current address within TWENTY (20) DAYS of this Order's filing or risk DISMISSAL. It is further
ORDERED, that the petitioner inform the court if he intends to voluntarily discontinue his petition within TWENTY (20) DAYS of this Order's filing.
It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order upon the parties by regular mail.