Opinion
4:22-cv-00363-LPR-ERE
06-06-2022
CODIE DANIELS ADC #144455 PLAINTIFF v. THOMAS HEARST and YOUNG DEFENDANTS
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
I. Procedure for Filing Objections
This Recommendation for the dismissal of Mr. Daniels' claims has been sent to United States District Judge Lee P. Rudofsky. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. Any objections filed must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for the objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Recommendation. If no objections are filed, Judge Rudofsky may adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing all of the evidence in the record. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.
II. Discussion
On April 25, 2022, Plaintiff Codie Daniels, an Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”) inmate, filed this § 1983 lawsuit pro se. Doc. 1. With his initial filing, Mr. Daniels failed to provide a completed application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), including a jail account information sheet signed by an authorized official; nor did he pay a filing fee. Accordingly, on April 25, 2022, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to send Mr. Daniels an IFP application and ordered him to either: (1) return a completed IFP application, along with a jail account information sheet; or (2) pay the $402.00 filing fee. Doc. 2. The Court's Order specifically warned Mr. Daniels that his failure to comply within 30 days would likely result in the dismissal of this lawsuit. Id.
On May 3, 2022, the Court's April 25, 2022 Order was returned as undeliverable with the notation “not deliverable as addressed.” Docs. 3. Based on a review of the Arkansas Division of Correction's website, Mr. Daniels is no longer in ADC custody. See https://apps.ark.org/inmate info/search.php
On May 4, 2022, the Court ordered Mr. Daniels to notify the Court of his current address within 30 days or risk dismissal of his complaint. Doc. 4. To date, he has not responded to the Court's May 4 Order, and the time to do so has passed.
Mr. Daniels has failed to inform the Court of his current address, as required by Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) and this Court's Initial Order. Doc. 2. As a result, the Court has no way to communicate with Mr. Daniels regarding his lawsuit.
III. Conclusion
The Court recommends that Mr. Daniels' claims be DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on his failure to: (1) comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2); (2) respond to the Court's May 4, 2022 Order; (3) address the filing fee requirement; and (4) prosecute this lawsuit.