Opinion
8:21-cv-1252-CEH-MRM
12-01-2022
ELISE HOWELL and JOHN HOWELL, Plaintiffs, v. CROSSPOINT VETERINARY HOSPITAL, LLC, CHRISTINE MCHUGHES, EUGENE JENKINS and UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS, Defendants.
ORDER
CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on review of the file. A November 14, 2022 order directed Plaintiffs Elise and John Howell to show cause within fourteen days why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Doc. 24. Additionally, the Court directed Plaintiffs to submit new applications to proceed in federal court without prepaying fees and costs using the long form found on the Court's website. Doc. 24. Because Plaintiffs failed to respond to the Court's Order or to request an extension of time to do so, this action is due to be dismissed without prejudice.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, initiated this action in May 2021 by filing a Complaint against CrossPoint Veterinary Hospital, LLC, for damages arising out of the death of their Himalayan cat, “Stripe.” Doc. 1. The procedural history of the action is set forth in detail in the Court's Order to Show Cause issued November 14, 2022. See Doc. 24. Review of the docket reveals the Clerk sent the Court's order to show cause to Plaintiffs on November 14, 2022. On November 30, 2022, the mail was returned marked as “Return to Sender. Not deliverable as addressed. Unable to Forward.” No change of address or forwarding information was included. See Docs. 25, 26.
Nothing has been filed by Plaintiffs in this case since November 2021. No change of address has been provided. Plaintiffs have not complied with the Court's Order to Show Cause, nor sought an extension of time to do so. The Court cautioned Plaintiffs that failure to respond to the show cause order and to file applications to proceed without prepaying fees on the long form within the time provided would result in dismissal of this action, without prejudice and without further notice. Doc. 24 at 3.
Although it is unknown whether Plaintiffs saw the Court's Order to Show Cause because the mail was marked “return to sender,” the Plaintiffs are not relieved of their ongoing responsibility to keep their contact information current with the Court so that they receive communications from the Court and opposing parties regarding their case. See, e.g., Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a) (“Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by . . . a party personally if the party is unrepresented . . . [and] must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone number.”)
A district court may dismiss a plaintiff's claims pursuant to Rule 41(b) or the court's inherent authority to manage its docket. Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). Under Rule 41(b), “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss this action or any claim against it.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that a district court may dismiss an action sua sponte for the plaintiff's failure to prosecute her case or obey a court order under Rule 41(b). Betty K Agencies, Ltd., 432 F.3d at 1337.
The Court directed Plaintiffs to respond to the Order to Show Cause and to submit new applications to proceed in federal court without prepaying fees using the long form. Plaintiffs had until November 28, 2022, in which to do so. They failed to comply with the Court's orders. The time to file a response to the November 14, 2022 Order has expired, and Plaintiffs have neither filed a written response nor requested an extension of time to do so.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice.
2. The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending deadlines and to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED.