United States District Court, E.D. New York
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, District Judge.
On March 26, 2014, the Court's March 17, 2014, Memorandum and Order (Doc. No. 10) was returned as undeliverable (Doc. No. 12). A review of the New York City Department of Correction ("DOC") Inmate Lookup Service reflects that plaintiff is no longer in DOC custody.
When a party changes addresses, it is that party's obligation to notify the Court of the new address. Virola v. Entire GRVC Dep't of Mental Health Hygeine Servs., 12 Civ. 1005, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22287, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2014). This rule applies not only to represented parties but also to pro se litigants. See Alomar v. Recard, 07 Civ. 5654, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124817, at *5-6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2009) (stating that the "duty to inform the Court and defendants of any change of address is an obligation that rests with all pro se plaintiffs." (internal quotation marks omitted)). When a pro se litigant fails to provide the Court with notice of a change of address, the Court may deny the litigant's request for relief. Dong v. United States, No. 02 Civ. 7751, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3125, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2004) (dismissing pro se litigant's claim because litigant failed to inform court of his current address, causing court to lose contact with him).
Plaintiff has been released from DOC custody and has not informed the Court of his current address. Plaintiff shall provide the Court with his current address within thirty (30) days of this Order's issuance. If plaintiff fails to provide the Court with his current address by that date, the Court will dismiss this case as abandoned. Furthermore, to conserve resources, the Court hereby stays the order directing the United States Marshals Service to serve process on the remaining defendants, ...