Little v. Phillips et al (ASH), No. 3:2013cv00108 - Document 36 (E.D. Tenn. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION finding that this action will therefore be DISMISSED for failure to comply with orders of the Court and for want of prosecution. The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. Signed by District Judge R Leon Jordan on 1/12/2016. (MGM) (c/m)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Little v. Phillips et al (ASH) Doc. 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE JOHN PAUL LITTLE, Plaintiff, v. CAITLYN BELL, GARRETT BISHOP, CHARLES MULLINS, and OFFICER BRYANT, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No.: 3:13-CV-108 MEMORANDUM This is a prisoner’s pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. This matter is before the Court upon postal return of an order the Court mailed to Plaintiff at the address listed for Plaintiff on the Court’s docket sheet. The postal authorities returned the mail to the Court more than thirty days ago with the envelope marked “FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND” [Doc. 34 p. 6]. Accordingly, it is clear that Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with notice of his correct address. The Court previously ordered Plaintiff to inform the Court and Defendants of any address changes immediately and notified Plaintiff that failure to provide a correct address within ten days following a change of address would result in the dismissal of this action [Doc. 5 p. 3]. This action will therefore be DISMISSED for failure to comply with orders of the Court and for want of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (recognizing court’s authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of prosecution); White v. City of Grand Rapids, No. 01-229234, 34 F. App’x 210, 211, 2002 WL 926998, at *1 (6th Cir. May 7, 2002) (finding that pro se prisoner’s complaint “was subject to dismissal for want of Dockets.Justia.com prosecution because he failed to keep the district court apprised of his current address”); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108 (6th Cir. 1991). The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. See Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER. ENTER: s/ Leon Jordan United States District Judge 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.
