Opinion
Case No. 1:15-cv-394
10-06-2015
DR. FELIX GUZMAN RIVADENEIRA, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants.
Barrett, J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The instant prisoner civil rights action commenced on June 15, 2014 when the pro se plaintiff, an inmate at a jail in Woodstock, Illinois, filed a complaint without paying the filing fee or submitting a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (See Doc. 1). On July 8, 2015, the undersigned issued a Deficiency Order requiring the plaintiff to "pay $400 ($350 filing fee plus $50 administrative fee) or submit to the Court an in forma pauperis application and certified copy of his inmate trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the preceding six-month period" in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)-(2). (See Doc. 2) (emphasis added). Plaintiff responded to the Deficiency Order by submitting only the inmate trust fund account statement. (Doc. 3). Therefore, the undersigned issued a second Deficiency Order on August 28, 2015, requiring the plaintiff to "either pay $400 ($350 filing fee plus $50 administrative fee) or submit to the Court an in forma pauperis application completed and signed by him" within thirty days. (See Doc. 4). The Court's docket record reflects that the second Deficiency Order, which was mailed to the plaintiff at the Illinois jail, was returned as "[u]ndeliverable." (See Doc. 5). To date, plaintiff has yet to inform the Court of any change of address. The thirty-day deadline for complying with the second Deficiency Order has also passed.
District courts have the inherent power to sua sponte dismiss civil actions for want of prosecution to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases." Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-631 (1962). Failure of a party to inform the Court of a change in address or to respond to an order of the court warrants invocation of the Court's inherent power in this federal habeas corpus proceeding. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED for lack of prosecution.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
s/Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to this Report & Recommendation ("R&R") within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent's objections within FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). cbc