Opinion
22-3164-JWL-JPO
10-14-2022
RODNEY WOODS, Plaintiff, v. FNU ATKINS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.) On September 12, 2022, the Court entered a Notice of Deficiency (Doc. 4) granting Plaintiff until October 12, 2022, to provide the financial information required to support his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 18 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). The Court's Notice of Deficiency provides that “[i]f you fail to comply within the prescribed time, the Judge presiding over your case will be notified of your non-compliance, and this action may be dismissed without further notice for failure to comply with this court order.” (Doc. 4, at 1.) The Court's Notice of Deficiency was mailed to Plaintiff at his current address of record and was returned as undeliverable, with a notation that Plaintiff had left the facility. (Doc. 5.)
The Court's Local Rules provide that “[e]ach attorney or pro se party must notify the clerk in writing of any change of address or telephone number. Any notice mailed to the last address of record of an attorney or pro se party is sufficient notice.” D. Kan. Rule 5.1(c)(3). Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with a Notice of Change of Address and has failed to provide the financial information by the Court's deadline.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “authorizes a district court, upon a defendant's motion, to order the dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or ‘a court order.'” Young v. U.S., 316 Fed.Appx. 764, 771 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b)). “This rule has been interpreted as permitting district courts to dismiss actions sua sponte when one of these conditions is met.” Id. (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003)). “In addition, it is well established in this circuit that a district court is not obligated to follow any particular procedures when dismissing an action without prejudice under Rule 41(b).” Young, 316 Fed.Appx. at 771-72 (citations omitted).
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's order requiring him to submit his financial information by October 12, 2022. Therefore, this matter is dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT this matter is dismissed without prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.