UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------x TOBIAS DARDEN, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 23-CV-07831 (OEM) (ST) -against-

WILLARD DOC; SUFFOLK COUNTY PAROLE/JUDGE PAROLE; SUFFOLK COUNTY COURT SYSTEM (WARRANTS), In Their Own Capacity; JOHN DOE #1, Classification Willard D.T.C.; JOHN DOE #2, Senior Parole Officer/Head of Parole; JOHN DOE #3, Judge Supreme Court Justice/ (Own Capacity)

Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------x ORELIA E. MERCHANT, United States District Judge.

Pro se Plaintiff Tobias Darden filed the instant complaint pursuant to

. By Order dated November 8, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), noting that, inter alia, Plaintiff stated that he had $7,000.00 in a savings or checking account and had not demonstrated that he was unable to pay the required fee. ECF 7. Plaintiff was informed that if he wished to proceed with this action, he must, within 14 days, either (1) pay the $402 fee to the Clerk of Court of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York1 or (2) otherwise demonstrate that he cannot pay the filing fee.

By Order dated November 30, 2023, the Court afforded Plaintiff an additional 60 days to pay the required $402 filing fee. In May 2024, the Plaintiff mailed to the Court a “Notice of Motion to Proceed As a Poor Person Upon Appeal” titled for the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division.

1 The Court notes that the fee for a civil complaint has increased since the time that Plaintiff filed his complaint and is now $405.00. ECF 9. The Clerk’s office returned the document to Plaintiff, noting that the document appeared intended for another court. By Order dated October 16, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff a final opportunity to demonstrate that he is unable to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff was directed to either pay the $402

filing fee or submit an amended IFP application within 30 days. ECF 10. The United States Postal Service returned that mail to the Court as “not deliverable as addressed [and] unable to forward”.2 ECF 11. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his last known address and note service on the docket. The Court certifies pursuant to

(a)(3), that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States,

(1962).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2024 Brooklyn, New York

/s/ ORELIA E. MERCHANT United States District Judge

2 Plaintiff has a duty to keep the Court apprised of his address. Carr v. Hallett, 21-CV-2808,

, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2021) (noting that the Court may dismiss an action “where a pro se plaintiff stops participating in litigation and circumstances where case-related mailings to the plaintiff are returned as undeliverable.”); Scruggs v. Fludd, 19-CV-5163,

, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2019) (pro se Plaintiff has a duty to keep the Court apprised of his current address).