UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
April 20, 2012
NORMAN R. DESNOYES, PLAINTIFF,
BRIAN FISCHER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: William M. Skretny Chief Judge United States District Court
DECISION and ORDER
Plaintiff has filed this pro se action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983. It now appears that the Court does not have plaintiff's current address. On December 22, 2011, the Court mailed to plaintiff a Scheduling Order on defendants' motion for summary judgment and on January 3, 2012, the mail was returned from plaintiff's former correctional facility with a notation that plaintiff had been paroled as of June 13, 2011. Based on this, it appears that plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with an address where papers may be served.
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) requires that a party proceeding pro se "must furnish the Court with a current address at which papers may be served on the litigant. .... In addition, the Court must have a current address at all times. Thus a pro se litigant must notify the Court immediately in writing of any change of address. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of the case with prejudice." Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d).
Accordingly, plaintiff is directed to provide the Court with an address where papers may be served by May 23, 2012 or the case will be dismissed with prejudice without further order of the Court.
If plaintiff fails to provide an address by May 23, 2012, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case as dismissed with prejudice without further order of the Court.
William M. Skretny
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.