# I n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f F e d e r a l C l a i m s

No. 13-76C (F iled: J uly

23, 2013)

************************************* THERESA DANI EL S, * * Plaintiff, *

* v. * * THE UNI TED STATES, * * Def endant. * *************************************
ORDER DISMISSING CASE The a bove-c aptioned ca se wa s transfe rre d to the United States Court of Fe dera l Claims from the United States D istrict Court for the District of O reg on on J anuar y 30, 2013. The transfe r complaint wa s due by Marc h 4, 2013. On Fe bruar y 22, 2013, the pro se pla intiff filed a motion for enlar g ement of time see king a n additional six ty

day s within which to file her tra nsfer complaint. She explained that she nee ded the a dditional tim e to locate and re tain new c ounsel beca use her attorney , Glenn N. Solomon, had terminate d the attorne y -client re lationship. The court grante d plaintiff’s motion on Febr uary 27, 2013, extending the de adline to file a transfe r complaint to May

3, 2013. Plaintiff did not file a transfe r complaint by the May 3, 2013 deadline. I

n a May 13, 2013 order , the cour

t directe d plaintiff to file a status report by May 31, 2013, descr ibing he r ef forts in locatingan attorne y

to repre sent her a

nd indicatingwhether

she nee ded additional time to locate an attorne y . Plaintiff did not file a status repor t. Thus, on J une 17, 2013, the c ourt issued an order to show cause , direc ting plaintiff to r espond to the orde r by J uly 5, 2013, or fa ce dismissal of her case for f ailure to prose cute. The court sent the or der to plaintiff at her home a ddress–the only contac t information the cour t had for pla intiff–via ce rtified mail. On June 25, 2013, the U.S. Post al Service returne d the orde r to the cour t as undelivera

ble. 1 Although it is plaintiff’s re sponsibili ty under Rule 83.1( b)(5) (A) of the Rules of the United States Court of Fe dera l Claims (“RCFC”) to kee p the cour t informed of he r addr ess, the court made one fina l effor t to ascer tain plaintiff’s cur

rent whe rea

bouts. The cour

t contacte d plaintiff’s for

mer attorney , Mr. Solomon, to ascertain whe ther he had cur rent c ontact information

The sticker

aff ix ed to the enve lope indicated: “ Return to Sender; Una ble to For war d.” 1 A handwr itten notation on the envelop indicate d: “Moved; No F wd; 6442.”for plaintiff. Specifica lly , on J uly 1, 2013, the cour

t issued an orde r re questingthat Mr. 2 Solomon fil e a status report by J uly 15, 2013, indicatingwhether he had a ny additional contac t information for pla intiff, such as a curr ent mailing a ddress, a n e-ma il address, or a

telephone number. That same day , a member of cha mbers staff

called Mr . Solomon t o rela y the cour t’s reque st. Mr. Solom on orally repr esente d that he had no othe r conta ct information for plaintiff, but appar ently

he has de clined to conf

irm what he r elated to c hamber s staff in wr iting as reque sted by

the cour t. Havingexhausted all rea sonable a nd appropr iate ave nues in an e ffor t to advise plaintiff that her c ase f

ace s dismis sal, the cour

t can do nothingmore than dismiss plaintiff’s ca se for failure to prosecute pursuant to RCFC 41(b). As e x plained above , it is a lit iga nt’s duty to maintain curr ent contac t information with the court. The court is not oblige d to eng ag e in assiduous detec tive work to locate an individual whose c ase w as transf err ed to this court. There fore , the cler

k is directed to DISMISS plaintiff’s ca se and e nter judg ment acc ording ly

. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Marg are t M. Sweeney MARGARET M. SW EENEY J udg e

The c ourt could not, and re mains unable to, see k further contac t information from 2 defe ndant; beca

use a tra nsfer complaint has not y et bee n filed, the United States De partment of J ustice has not assigned an attorney to the case

. -2-