AYALA
v.
LEE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A case may be dismissed if plaintiffs fail to provide updated contact information and cannot be reached.
Plaintiffs filed a pro se action in state court, which was removed to federal court. All attempts to contact the plaintiffs at their listed address we…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Failure To Prosecute cases and more on FLexlaw
ELI YADIEL ACEVEDO AYALA, ELI F. ACEVEDO MARIN and LUIS ENRIQUE CEDENO, Plaintiffs, v.
LEE COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT, CARMINE
MARCENO and JEFFREY J. BASTEDO, Defendants. Case No.: 2:24-cv-1166-SPC-NPM
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on a sua sponte review of the file. Plaintiffs brought this action, pro se, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court. (Doc. 10). Defendants then removed the case here. (Doc. 1). In the Complaint, all Plaintiffs list the same home address. This is the only contact information available to the Court and Defendants. [fn 1]
The Court has attempted to send Plaintiffs several notices and orders at the given address, each of which have been returned as “unable to forward.” Apparently, Plaintiffs no longer live at the provided address. Defendants also
filed a motion to dismiss, which they have been unable to forward to Plaintiffs or confer for 3.01(g) purposes. (Docs. 13, 22).
On January 9, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to provide an updated address by January 31 or risk dismissal of this case. As expected, this Order was also returned. So the Court is in a predicament. On the one hand, Plaintiffs are likely unaware this case is pending in federal court given they filed in state court and have not received notice of the removal. On the other hand, it is Plaintiffs' obligation to provide the court (state and federal) with updated contact information. [fn 2] But, at the end of the day, this case cannot proceed without Plaintiffs. As such, Plaintiffs' case is dismissed. See Pettiway v. Nixon, No. 2:21-CV-165-WHA-KFP, 2021 WL 5043389, at *1 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 5, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 5042451 (Oct. 29, 2021) (dismissing the plaintiffs case for failure to provide a current address).
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to deny all pending motions as moot, terminate any deadlines, and close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on February 6, 2025.
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
[fn 1]: Defendants have certified they have no other contact information for Plaintiffs. (Doc. 23).
[fn 2]: Out of an abundance of caution, the Court reviewed the state-court docket. Since Defendants removed the case, Plaintiffs have not filed anything in state court or provided the state court with an updated address.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ayala v. Lee Cnty. Sheriff Dep't, 2021 WL 5043389 (M.D. Fla. 2025)…on.² But, at the end of the day, this case cannot proceed without Plaintiffs. As such, Plaintiffs' case is dismissed. See Pettiway v. Nixon, No. 2:21-CV-165-WHA-KFP, 2021 WL 5043389, at *1 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 5, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 5042451 (Oct. 29, 2021) (dismissing the plaintiffs case for failure to provide a current address). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to deny all pending motions as moot, terminate any…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Ayala v. Lee Cnty. Sheriff Dep't, 2021 WL 5043389 (M.D. Fla. 2025)