Opinion
24-3162-JWL
12-17-2024
CHAD DWAYNE PROVORSE, Plaintiff, v. GENE WARD, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Chad Dwayne Provorse, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Seward County Detention Center (SCDC) in Liberal, Kansas, brought this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On October 31, 2024, the Court issued a memorandum and order to show cause explaining that this matter is subject to dismissal because the complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief. (Doc. 6.) The Court granted Plaintiff to and including December 2, 2024 to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed and warned Plaintiff that the “[f]ailure to respond by the deadline may result in dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff.” Id. at 7. As of the date of this order, the Court has not received anything from Plaintiff in response to the memorandum and order to show cause.
Moreover, on December 16, 2024, the Court received mail it had sent to Plaintiff at the SCDC; the envelope is marked “return to sender” and “inmate no longer here.” (Doc. 7.) Local Rule 5.1(b)(3) requires a pro se party to “notify the clerk of any change of address or telephone number.” D. Kan. 5.1(b)(3). The address of record for Plaintiff in this matter remains the SCDC, but it appears from the returned mail that Plaintiff is no longer at the SCDC.
Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court may dismiss an action “if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). See also Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003) (noting that Rule 41(b) “has long been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure . . . to comply with the . . . court's orders”). Because Plaintiff has failed to respond to the memorandum and order to show cause and has failed to provide the clerk with his current address, the Court concludes that this action should be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that this action is dismissed without prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.