Iglesias v. Pandya

Full title: DAVIS L. IGLESIAS, Plaintiff v. DR. PANDYA, et al., Defendants

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Jan 3, 2018

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:CV-17-1363 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 3, 2018)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:CV-17-1363

01-03-2018

DAVIS L. IGLESIAS, Plaintiff v. DR. PANDYA, et al., Defendants

Judge Nealon

() MEMORANDUM

Davis Iglesias, an inmate formerly confined in the State Correctional Institution, Frackville, Pennsylvania, filed the above captioned civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On January 3, 2018, mail was returned to the Court as "undeliverable", stating that it was "not deliverable as addressed" and "unable to forward." (Docs. 15, 16). A telephone inquiry from the Pro Se Writ Clerk to SCI-Frackville revealed that Plaintiff had been paroled on September 29, 2017.

The Court notes that a pro se Plaintiff has the affirmative obligation to keep the court informed of his address. Should such address change in the course of this litigation, the Plaintiff shall immediately inform the court of such change, in writing. If the court is unable to communicate with the Plaintiff because he has failed to notify the court of his address, the Plaintiff will be deemed to have abandoned the lawsuit.

Plaintiff has not communicated with the court since the initial filing of his action on June 19, 2017. (Doc. 1). This Court's telephone inquiry indicates that Iglesias has been released from SCI-Frackville.

By notice contained in this Court's August 2, 2017 Standing Practice Order, Plaintiff was informed of his obligation to keep the Court informed of his current address and if the Court is unable to communicate with the Plaintiff because of his failure to advise the Court of his current address, the Plaintiff will be deemed to have abandoned the lawsuit (See Doc. 7). Plaintiff has failed to do so. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the Plaintiff has abandoned this suit. Since the case could languish forever, the Court, on its own, may dismiss an action for failure of the Plaintiff to prosecute. See Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 41. Thus, this action should be dismissed for the Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. An appropriate Order shall issue. Dated: January 3, 2018

/s/ William J. Nealon

United States District Judge