Cano v. United States of America/Corporate America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHRISTOPHER HIRAM CANO, Plaintiff, -against- 21-CV-9165 (LTS) UNITED STATES OF ORDER OF DISMISSAL AMERICA/CORPORATE AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se and seeking to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), brings this action asserting that Defendants violated his rights. At the time that Plaintiff filed this complaint, he was detained at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island. By order dated April 5, 2022, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit a completed and signed prisoner authorization (ECF No. 4), and on April 6, 2022, the Clerk’s Office mailed a copy of that order to Plaintiff. On April 26, 2022, the order was returned to the court with a notation on the envelope indicating “Inmate DISC xSH 3/30.” Plaintiff has failed to notify the court of a change of mailing address and he has not initiated any further contact with the court, written or otherwise.1 By order dated August 31, 2022, the Court directed Plaintiff to update his address of record within 30 days of the date of that order and advised Plaintiff that failure to comply with the August 31, 2022, order would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See LeSane v. Hall’s Sec. Analyst, Inc., 239 F.3d 206, 209 (2d Cir. 2001); see also Fields v. Beem, No. 13-CV-0005 (GTS/DEP), 2013 WL 3872834, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. July 24, 2013)

1 A review of the New York City Department of Correction Inmate Lookup Service reveals that Plaintiff was “Released to State Hospital” on August 4, 2022. See https://a073-ils- web.nyc.gov/inmatelookup/pages/home/home.jsf. (“A plaintiff is required to notify the Court when his address changes, and failure to do so is sufficient to justify dismissal of a plaintiff’s complaint.”) (collecting cases).

Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order, has failed to notify the court of a change of mailing address, and has not initiated any further contact with the court, written or otherwise. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint, filed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), is dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal.

Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in this case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2022 New York, New York /s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge