Opinion
4:20-cv-01209 KGB-PSH
01-07-2023
KASEY HERNANDEZ PLAINTIFF v. DOE DEFENDANT
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION INSTRUCTIONS
The following Recommendation has been sent to United States District Judge Kristine G. Baker. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.
DISPOSITION
Plaintiff Kasey Hernandez filed a pro se complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on October 8, 2020 (Doc. No. 1). Mail sent to Hernandez was returned as undeliverable (Doc. Nos. 5 & 6). On November 30, 2020, the Court entered a text order notifying Hernandez that the mail could not be delivered to her because she was no longer at the address she provided (Doc. No. 7). Hernandez was directed to provide notice of her current mailing address no later than thirty days from the entry of the November 30, 2020 text order. She was warned that her failure to provide a current mailing address would cause the undersigned to recommend her complaint be dismissed. A printed version of the text order was sent to her at her last known address. The envelope containing the Court's November 30 order could not be delivered to Hernandez because she was no longer at the address she provided, and the envelope was returned to the Clerk of the Court and entered on the docket. See Doc. No. 8.
In its initial order to Hernandez, the Court notified her of her duty to promptly notify the Clerk and the parties of any change in her address. The Court also notified Hernandez that if any communication from the Court to her is not responded to within 30 days, her case may be dismissed without prejudice. Doc. No. 2.
More than 30 days have passed, and Hernandez has not complied or otherwise responded to the November 30 order. Hernandez failed to notify the Clerk and the other parties to the proceedings of a change in her address as required by Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Accordingly, the Court finds that this action should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) and failure to respond to the Court's orders. See Miller v. Benson, 51 F.3d 166, 168 (8th Cir. 1995) (District courts have inherent power to dismiss sua sponte a case for failure to prosecute, and exercise of that power is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
It is therefore recommended that this case be dismissed without prejudice.