GRIFFIN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA (LEE COUNTY)
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.
The court held that the case should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute due to the petitioner's failure to keep the court informed of his address.
The petitioner failed to update his address with the court, causing court orders to be returned as undeliverable. The court issued an order to show ca…
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 Diligence In Prosecution cases and more on FLexlaw
RUSSELL, MIKE SCOTT and LINDA DOGGETT,
Respondents. /
OPINION AND ORDER1
This matter is before the Court upon sua sponte review of the record. Petitioner was informed in the Court’s Standing Order that he had to keep the Court advised in writing of any changes in his address. (Doc. 4 at ¶ 6) The Court mailed Petitioner a copy of the Standing Order for Filing Documents Exceeding Twenty-Five Pages (Doc. 7) which was returned as undeliverable because Petitioner was no longer in custody. On July 8, 2019, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (Doc. 8) why Petitioner’s case should not be dismissed for failing to keep the Court advised of a change in his address. The
Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court. Order to Show Cause was returned as undeliverable. As of the date on this Order, Petitioner has not filed a notice of change of address. (See docket). The Petitioner is responsible for informing the Court of any changes in address in order to expedite the judicial process. Taylor v. Hilden, No. 2:10-CV-221-FTM36SPC, 2010 WL 2643528, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 15, 2010), report and recommendation adopted,
No. 2:10-CV-221-FTM-36SPC, 2010 WL 2643527 (M.D. Fla. June 30, 2010). The Court’s standing order informed Petitioner of the responsibility to keep the Court appraised in writing of his current mailing address. (Doc. 4, at ¶ 6). Petitioner has violated the Court’s orders and has not updated his mailing address for over six months. The Court has taken reasonable steps to provide Petitioner an opportunity to respond to the Court’s Orders and Petitioner was put on notice that the case would be dismissed if he failed to comply. The Local Rules of this Court provide that “[w]henever it appears that any case is not being diligently prosecuted the Court may, on motion of any party or on its own motion, enter an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed, and if no satisfactory cause is shown, the case may be dismissed by the Court for want of prosecution.” M.D. Fla. R. 3.10(a). The Court finds that Petitioner has failed to prosecute this case and that the case is due to be dismissed. Because the Court is dismissing this action without prejudice, Petitioner may file a new Petition if he wishes to pursue his claim. Petitioner is cautioned that the statute of limitations on filing a petition for habeas corpus as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) is not stayed and will continue to run while he has no case pending before the Court.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly, terminate any deadlines and pending motions, and close the file. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 29th day of October 2019.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SA: FTMP-2 Copies: All Parties of Record