Lett v. Ivey et al (INMATE 1), No. 2:2019cv00518 - Document 13 (M.D. Ala. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that: 1) Plf Jerry L. Lett's 11 motion to vacate the opinion and judgment is granted; 2) The 9 opinion and 10 judgment are vacated; 3) The clerk of court shall re-mail to plf Lett, at the corrected addre ss, all orders and other court documents that were previously returned as undeliverable, so that plf Lett has a full record of what has transpired in the case; This case is referred back to the U.S. Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/31/2019. (Copies re-mailed to Plf as directed) (amf, )

Download PDF

Lett v. Ivey et al (INMATE 1) Doc. 13 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION JERRY L. LETT, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. KAY IVEY, Governor, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19cv518-MHT (WO) OPINION AND ORDER This case is before the court on plaintiff Jerry L. Lett’s motion previously to vacate entered in the this opinion case. and For the judgment reasons explained below, the motion will be granted. This court recently adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Lett’s suit without prejudice because he “failed to provide the court with a usable address.” Lett did complaint Opinion (doc. no. 9). indeed that inform he was this This was in error. court when incarcerated filing at his Ventress Correctional Facility, and the envelope in which his Dockets.Justia.com complaint was mailed to the court had a usable return address. See Complaint (doc. no. 1) at 2 & 6. In general, when the clerk of the court dockets an inmate’s complaint, the case management system allows the clerk to select the particular Alabama prison facility from an electronic address book, ensuring that the court uses the most recent address for each facility and allowing the court to update that address over time. The mailing address for Ventress Correctional Facility has, in fact, changed over time, from a P.O. Box to a street address.1 In this case, because Lett had previously filed a lawsuit Facility, in see 2014 Lett while v. at Thomas Ventress et al., Correctional case number 2:14-cv-00496-WHA, his contact information was already stored in the electronic address book. address had been manually typed However, that in using the 1. The mailing address used to be P.O. Box 767, Clayton, Alabama 36016. The mailing address is now 379 Alabama Hwy 239 North, Clayton, Alabama 36016. 2 then-accurate but now-inaccurate P.O. Box address. Thus, when the clerk of the court updated the address for Ventress Correctional Facility throughout the case management system, the change was not reflected in plaintiff’s personal contact information in the system.2 As a result, mail from this court, including multiple court orders and the recommendation of the magistrate judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for Lett’s “failure to provide the court with an address 2. Lett explains that he was one of approximately ten other inmates at Ventress Correctional Facility who filed the same, verbatim one-page complaint. See Motion to Vacate (doc. no. 11) at 1. For example, Danny Foster, Sr., another inmate, filed the same complaint, on the same day. See Foster v. Ivey et al., case number 2:19-cv-00522-WKW. Lett, like Foster, identified himself as an inmate at Ventress, and their shared envelope included the correct return address for the facility. See Complaint (doc. no. 1) at 6. The stored, stale address for Lett appears to explain why his mail from the court was returned repeatedly as undeliverable, while, for example, Foster’s was not. 3 where he may be served,” were returned to the court as undeliverable.3 The clerk of the court is now aware of this discrepancy and has updated Lett’s address. *** Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff Jerry L. Lett’s motion to vacate the opinion and judgment (doc. no. 11) is granted. (2) The opinion and judgment (doc. nos. 9 & 10) are vacated. (3) The clerk of court shall re-mail to plaintiff Lett, at the corrected address, all orders and other court documents that were previously returned as undeliverable, so that plaintiff Lett has a full record of what has transpired in the case. 3. It is true that Lett appears to have obtained this court’s order dismissing the case without prejudice. It is not clear how the court order was successfully delivered, given the stale address and pattern of undeliverable mail. Nonetheless, it does not alter the resolution of the present motion. 4 This case is referred back to the United States Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. DONE, this the 31st day of October, 2019. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5

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.