BRAGG v. ELLIS et al, No. 3:2015cv07638 - Document 27 (D.N.J. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 1/27/2016. (eaj)

Download PDF
BRAGG v. ELLIS et al Doc. 27 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY BRIAN KEITH BRAGG, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 15-7638 (AET-LHG) v. MEMORANDUM OPINION CHARLES ELLIS, et al., Defendants. Thompson, District Judge On October 21, 2015, Brian Keith Bragg, submitted a 1. civil complaint alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by various employees of the Mercer County Correctional Center ("MCCC"), including its warden, Charles Ellis. (Docket Entry 1). The Court granted his application to proceed in forma pauperis and directed the Clerk to file the complaint. 2. (Docket Entry 2). On December 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, alleging that since the filing of his complaint, he has been subjected to threats of violence by MCCC staff and inmates. ! ! 3-6) . alleged Warden Ellis was his requests for protection. 3. (Docket Entry 4 to (Docket Entry 4 ! 7). On December 9, 2015, this Court, having screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, permitted the complaint Dockets.Justia.com to proceed in part and ordered summonses issued. (Docket Entries 5 and 6) . 4. On January 21, 2016, counsel £or Defendants informed the Court that Plaintiff was released from MCCC on January 19, 2016. Defendants are unaware of Plaintiff's present mailing address. (Docket Entry 23). 5. Local Civil Rule 10.l(a) requires unrepresented parties to notify the Court of any change in address within 7 days. The Rule further provides that, failure to file such notice "may result in the imposition of sanctions by the Court." Id. Indeed, failure to apprise the Court of an address change may result in the outright dismissal of the case for failure to proceed, or an administrative termination of the action without prejudice. See, e.g., Boretsky v. Corzine, No. 08-2265, 2008 WL 2512916 (D.N.J. June 23, 2008); Allebach v. Cathell, No. 06-5005, 2009 wt 2147145 (D.N.J. July 15, 2009). 6. More than 7 days have passed since Plaintiff was released from the MCCC. Plaintiff has not updated his address within that timeframe. 7. As the Court does not have a current address for Plaintiff, the matter cannot proceed at this time. The Court will therefore administratively terminate the proceedings without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to reinstate this action 2 by notifying the Court and Defendant of his new address within 30 days. 8. Failure to provide an updated address within 30 days of the date of this Order may result in the matter being dismissed for lack of prosecution. 9. An appropriate Order follows. ANNE U.S. District Judge 3

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.