Free Order on Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:02-cv-01994-WIG

Document 27

Filed 03/31/2004

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT OSCAR ORTIZ PRISONER CASE NO. 3:02cv1994(WIG)

v. PETER MURPHY, ET AL.

RULING AND ORDER The plaintiff filed this civil rights action on November 8, 2002. At that time he was incarcerated at the Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers, Connecticut. On December 4, 2003, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On December 8, 2003, the plaintiff mailed a motion to produce evidence to the Court. On December 10, 2003, the plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the motion for summary judgment. The Court granted the plaintiff's motion and directed him to file a response on or before February 4, 2004. On December 24, 2003, the defendants informed the Court that the plaintiff had been discharged to the custody of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement on December 11, 2003. The defendants represent that the plaintiff has been deported to the Dominican Republic. The Court notes that documents mailed to the plaintiff at Osborn Correctional Institution at the end of December 2003 and in January 2004, were returned to the Court with a notation that the plaintiff has been discharged from the Department of Correction. The plaintiff has failed to file a notice of change of address or contact the Court in any manner since his discharge.

Case 3:02-cv-01994-WIG

Document 27

Filed 03/31/2004

Page 2 of 2

Rule 83.1(c)2 of the Local Civil Rules of the United District Court for the District of Connecticut requires any party appearing pro se to keep the court advised of his or her current address in Connecticut "where service can be made upon him or her in the same manner as service is made on an attorney." In addition, on April 17, 2003, the Court issued a notice informing the plaintiff that if his address changed at any time during the litigation of this case, he must file a written notice of his new address with the Court. To date, the plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment as directed by the court and has failed to file a written notice of his current address where he may be served with documents in this case as required by Local Rule 83.1(c)2, D. Conn. L. Civ. R. Accordingly, the case is dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [doc. # 16] and plaintiff's Motion for Evidence [doc. # 23] are DENIED as moot. Any motion to reopen this case shall demonstrate good cause for failing to respond to the motion for summary judgment and file a written notice of change of address and shall be accompanied by a response to the motion for summary judgment and a current address. This is not a recommended ruling. The parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a magistrate judge and the case was transferred to the undersigned for all purposed on December 23, 2003. (See Doc. #25.) The Clerk is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED this 31st day of March, 2004, at Bridgeport, Connecticut.

/S/ William I. Garfinkel William I. Garfinkel United States Magistrate Judge

2