Opinion
21-CV-7338 (LTS)
10-05-2022
CHRISTOPHER HIRAM CANO, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTINE HANNA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge.
Plaintiff, appearing pro se and seeking to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), brings this action asserting that Defendants violated his rights. At the time that Plaintiff filed this complaint, he was detained at the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island. On March 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed a letter requesting copies of documents (ECF No. 7), and on March 18, 2022, the Clerk's Office mailed a letter to Plaintiff, advising him of the fees required to process his request. On March 30, 2022, the court's letter was returned to the court with a notation on the envelope indicating “Return to Sender, Attempted - Not Known, Unable to Forward.” Plaintiff has failed to notify the court of a change of mailing address and he has not initiated any further contact with the court, written or otherwise.
A review of the New York City Department of Correction Inmate Lookup Service reveals that Plaintiff was “Released to State Hospital” on August 4, 2022. See https://a073-ils-web.nyc.gov/inmatelookup/pages/home/home.jsf.
By order dated August 31, 2022, the Court directed Plaintiff to update his address of record within 30 days of the date of that order and advised Plaintiff that failure to comply with the August 31, 2022, order would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See LeSane v. Hall's Sec. Analyst, Inc., 239 F.3d 206, 209 (2d Cir. 2001); see also Fields v. Beem, No. 13-CV-0005 (GTS/DEP), 2013 WL 3872834, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. July 24, 2013) (“A plaintiff is required to notify the Court when his address changes, and failure to do so is sufficient to justify dismissal of a plaintiff's complaint.”) (collecting cases).
Plaintiff has not complied with the Court's order, has failed to notify the court of a change of mailing address, and has not initiated any further contact with the court, written or otherwise. Accordingly, Plaintiff's complaint, filed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), is dismissed without prejudice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in this case.
SO ORDERED.