Deener v. Hanson et al, No. 6:2011cv00234 - Document 41 (E.D. Okla. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Frank H. Seay : This action is, in all respects, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. (acg, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA DAKARI O. DEENER, Plaintiff, DAVID HANSON, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CIV 11-234-FHS-SPS OPINION AND ORDER On July 16, 2012, Defendant David Hanson filed a motion to compel and mailed a certified copy to plaintiff at his last known address. [Docket No. 36 at 2]. The motion was returned to Hanson s counsel by the postal service with notations of unclaimed and return to sender. [Docket No. 37-2]. On August 13, 2012, the court directed plaintiff to show cause within seven days why the motion to compel should not be granted, but the order was returned to the court on August 24, 2012, marked discharged and return to sender, attempted, not known, unable to forward. [Docket Nos. 38 and 39 at 3]. On September 13, 2012, plaintiff called the court with a new address and was advised that he needed to submit it in writing. Plaintiff failed to submit a written notification of his change of address. On February 12, 2013, the court mailed plaintiff copies of Defendant Hanson s motion to compel to the two addresses in his case file, including the address he submitted by telephone. Both letters were returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has failed to advise the court of his current address, as required by Local Civil Rule 5.5(a). Therefore, this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See United States ex rel. Jimenez v. Health Net, Inc., 400 F.3d 853, 854-56 (10th Cir. 2005) (dismissing appeal sua sponte for failure to prosecute because appellant disappeared and failed to meet court deadlines). ACCORDINGLY, this action is, in all respects, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of March, 2013. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.