Gillion v. Davis

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas

Gillion v. Davis

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

DEMARION GILLION PLAINTIFF #416359

V. Case No. 3:22-cv-00152-LPR

DAVIS, Correctional Officer, Craighead County Detention Center, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On June 24, 2022, Plaintiff Demarion Gillion, then an inmate in the Craighead County Detention Center (“CCDC”), filed a pro se Complaint pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983

. (Doc. 2.) In his Complaint, Mr. Gillion requested that all mail be delivered to both his address of record, the CCDC, and to his wife at his home address. (Id. at 1, 5.) On July 18, 2022, mail sent to Mr. Gillion at the CCDC was returned undeliverable. (Doc. 4.) Accordingly, on July 19, 2022, the Court entered an Order directing Mr. Gillion “to file a notice of his current mailing address, whether that be his home address or another detention facility,” within thirty (30) days if he wished to proceed with this lawsuit. (Doc. 5.) The Court directed that the Order be sent to Mr. Gillion at his home address and noted that, if Mr. Gillion had been released from incarceration, he would be required to file a free-world application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $402 filing and administrative fee for this action. (Id.) Finally, the Court warned Mr. Gillion that his failure to comply with the Order would cause his Complaint to be dismissed. (Id..) Mr. Gillion has not complied with or otherwise responded to the July 19, 2022 Order, and the time to do so has passed.1

1 The Clerk’s Office confirmed that the July 19, 2022 Order was sent to Mr. Gillion at the CCDC and his home address. The Order sent to the CCDC was returned undeliverable. (Doc. 6.) Accordingly, Mr. Gillion’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) and Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

370 U.S. 626, 630-31

(1962) (district courts have power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)). The Court certifies pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a)(3) that an in forma pauperis appeal from the Order and Judgment dismissing this action would not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 2022.

LEE P. RUDOFSKY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown