Opinion
ORDER
DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On August 14, 2012, the undersigned dismissed this action without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to keep the court apprised of his current address and his failure to respond to two court orders. The court entered judgment on the same day.
Plaintiff had consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. (Doc. No. 4)
Plaintiff has now filed a motion to re-open this case and claims that he called the undersigned's chambers back in March 2012, after he was released from prison, and informed the court that he had changed his address. As an initial matter, plaintiff has unreasonably delayed in filing this motion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c) (motions pursuant to Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time and if under Rule 60(b)(1)-(3) must be made within a year after the entry of judgment). Moreover, plaintiff's motion is without merit. Under Local Rule 182(f), plaintiff was obligated to notify the Clerk of the Court and all other parties of his change of address. To do so, he was required to file a separate notice of change of address and serve it on all parties. Absent such notice, service of documents at his prior address was fully effective. Plaintiff did not file a timely notice of change of address in this action as required. Accordingly, for all of these reasons, the court will deny plaintiff's motion to re-open this case.
Plaintiff is advised that if he wishes bring a new action based on the allegations set forth in his complaint which he earlier filed in this action, he must file a new complaint as required by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and he must either pay the required filing fee or file a new completed application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). Plaintiff should not list the case number for this cause of action on his new complaint form or his new application to proceed in forma pauperis because this case is closed. This court will not issue any further orders in response to future filings in this action.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to re-open this action (Doc. No. 11) is denied.