Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_16-cv-00139/USCOURTS-ared-2_16-cv-00139-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Other Civil Rights

---

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

DELTA DIVISION

ANTHONY GRIFFIN, Reg. #19410-075 PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 2:16-cv-00139-KGB

BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On September 20, 2016, plaintiff Anthony Griffin, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint 

(Dkt. No. 1) and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Dkt. No. 2) in the United 

States District Court for the District of Columbia. In his complaint, Mr. Griffin alleges that he was 

denied adequate medical care in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The 

case was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Arkansas (Dkt. No. 3).

On November 9, 2016, Mr. Griffin filed a request for status and notice of change of address 

(Dkt. No. 5). That same day, the Court denied Mr. Griffin’s motion for leave to proceed IFP (Dkt. 

No. 6). On November 21, 2016, Mr. Griffin filed a second motion for leave to proceed IFP (Dkt. 

No. 7), which the Court granted on October 25, 2017 (Dkt. No. 8). On November 6, 2017, that 

Order was returned as undeliverable (Dkt. No. 9).

On April 3, 2018, Mr. Griffin filed a motion for copies and notice of change of address 

(Dkt. No. 10), which the Court granted on February 11, 2019 (Dkt. No. 11). In its February 11, 

2019, Order, the Court also noted that it “cannot order service on the defendants until Mr. Griffin 

determines their correct service addresses” and ordered Mr. Griffin to “file a ‘Motion for Service’ 

providing the defendants’ full names and service addresses within 30 days from the entry of this 

Case 2:16-cv-00139-KGB Document 13 Filed 01/24/20 Page 1 of 2
2

Order” (Id., at 1, 2). That Order was sent to the address that Mr. Griffin provided on April 3, 2018, 

but was returned as undeliverable (Dkt. No. 12).

To date, Mr. Griffin has not provided valid service addresses for defendants, and the time 

to do so has since passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (“If a defendant is not served within 90 days 

after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must 

dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a 

specified time.”). Additionally, mail sent to Mr. Griffin’s last known address has been returned as 

undeliverable (Dkt. No. 12), and Mr. Griffin has not provided the Court with a new address. See 

Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) (“It is the duty of any party not represented by counsel to promptly notify the 

Clerk and the other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her address, to monitor the 

progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently. . . . If any communication 

from the Court to a pro se plaintiff is not responded to within thirty (30) days, the case may be 

dismissed without prejudice.”); see also Miller v. Benson, 51 F.3d 166, 168 (8th Cir. 1995) 

(recognizing a district court’s “inherent power to dismiss sua sponte a case for failure to 

prosecute”) (quoting Sterling v. United States, 985 F.2d 411, 412 (8th Cir. 1993))).

Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice for failure to comply with 

its February 11, 2019, Order and for want of prosecution.

It is so ordered this 24th day of January, 2020.

_________________________________

Kristine G. Baker

United States District Judge

Case 2:16-cv-00139-KGB Document 13 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 2