Opinion
2:19-CV-12505-TGB-DRG
12-06-2022
MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. PATRICIA PENMAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 21)
TERRENCE G. BERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On November 23, 2022, pro se Plaintiff Michael B. Williams filed a second motion to amend his complaint. ECF No. 21. But as noted in this Court's August 4, 2022 Order dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and denying his first motion to amend, Plaintiff's case is closed. Order, ECF No. 19, PageID.351. The Court also explained that “Plaintiff's proper recourse is to file a new complaint in accordance with the federal rules, not to reopen this closed case.” Id. Moreover, the Court instructed that “[n]o further pleadings should be filed in this matter,” and “[a]dditional filings may be stricken.” Id. at PageID.352. Despite this, Plaintiff has now filed a second motion to amend.
The Court's August 4, 2022 Order was served by mail to Plaintiff, but was returned as undeliverable nearly four weeks after it was sent. ECF No. 20. But “it is not incumbent upon this Court or its staff to keep track of [Plaintiff's] current address.” Brown v. White, No. 09-12902, 2010 WL 1780954, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2010) (citations omitted). Rather, this District's Local Rule 11.2 requires Plaintiff to keep the Court apprised of address changes.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to amend (ECF No. 21) is STRICKEN. The Court reiterates that no further pleadings should be filed in this matter, and any additional filings may be stricken.
IT IS SO ORDERED.