NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MARCELLO POOLE,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MERCER COUNTY CORRECTION CENTER, 

et al.,

 Defendants.

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-3730 (MLC)

 MEMORANDUM OPINION

THE PLAINTIFF, pro se prisoner Marcello Poole, brought this 

action against the remaining defendants, Officer L. Klosinski, 

Officer K. Jones, and Warden Ellis (collectively, the 

“defendants”), for violations of his constitutional rights. (See

dkt. entry no. 1, Compl.)

THE DEFENDANTS moved for summary judgment, on June 18, 2013,

in their favor and against the plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 56 (the “Motion”). (See dkt. entry no. 30, 

Notice of Mot.; dkt. entry no. 23-1, Defs.’ Br.) The Magistrate 

Judge instructed the plaintiff to file any opposition to the Motion 

no later than July 22, 2013. (See dkt. entry no. 29, 6-18-2013 

Letter Order.) The plaintiff did not file opposition by July 22, 

2013.

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE, by Letter Order dated January 9, 2014,

directed the plaintiff to send a letter to the Court by January 28, 

Case 3:11-cv-03730-MLC-TJB Document 33 Filed 02/21/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 269
2

2014 - if he intended to file an opposition to the Motion – (1) 

explaining why he did not file opposition by July 22, 2013, and (2)

requesting permission to file opposition to the Motion out of time. 

(See dkt. entry no. 31, 1-9-14 Letter Order.) The Magistrate Judge

mailed the January 9, 2014 Letter Order to the plaintiff at the 

following address: 

Marcello Poole

INM656807

Northern State Prison

SBI#000182646E

PO Box 2300

Newark, NJ 07114

The Magistrate Judge mailed the January 9, 2014 Letter Order to the 

above address because the most recent correspondence from the 

plaintiff included a return address indicating that he remained

incarcerated at that address. (See dkt. entry no. 21, 2-22-13 

Letter from Marcello Poole.) Indeed, the defendants led the 

Magistrate Judge to believe that the plaintiff remained 

incarcerated there. (See Notice of Mot. at 1 (listing Newark 

address for plaintiff).)

THE PLAINTIFF, however, was actually transferred to Southern 

State Correctional Facility, 4295 Rt. 47, Delmont, NJ, 08314 at 

some time prior to the date the January 9, 2014 Letter Order was 

mailed to him. The plaintiff never advised the Court of any change 

in his address in contravention to Local Civil Rule 10.1(a), which 

states in relevant part that “unrepresented parties must advise the 

Case 3:11-cv-03730-MLC-TJB Document 33 Filed 02/21/14 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 270
3

Court of any change in their . . . address within seven days of . . 

. such change by filing a notice of said change with the Clerk.” 

L.Civ.R. 10.1(a).

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE - as the plaintiff failed to advise the 

Court of the change in his address – thus had to mail another 

Letter Order to the plaintiff. (See generally dkt. entry no. 32, 

2-11-14 Letter Order.) The February 11, 2014 Letter Order states

that if the plaintiff intends to file an opposition to the Motion, 

the plaintiff is required to send a letter to the Court by March 4, 

2014 explaining why he did not file by July 22, 2013 and requesting 

permission to file opposition to the Motion out of time. (See id.)

THE COURT is aware that the plaintiff is a pro se prisoner 

litigant and recognizes that pro se litigants are traditionally 

given greater leeway where they have not followed the technical 

rules of pleading and procedure. See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 

153 n.2 (3d Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the Court has the inherent 

power to control its own docket by issuing a stay. See Landis v. 

N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (stating “the power to stay 

proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 

control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of 

time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”); Rolo 

v. Gen. Dev. Corp., 949 F.2d 695, 702 (3d Cir. 1991) (noting 

district court exercised its inherent power to control its docket).

Case 3:11-cv-03730-MLC-TJB Document 33 Filed 02/21/14 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 271
4

THE COURT thus intends to stay and administratively terminate 

the Motion, pending whether the Court receives a response from the 

plaintiff to the February 11, 2014 Letter Order. Should the 

plaintiff not send such a letter to the Court by March 4, 2014, the 

Court will decide the Motion on the merits. See Xenos v. 

Hawbecker, 441 Fed.Appx. 128, 131 (3d Cir. 2011) (“[U]nless a 

plaintiff’s failure to oppose a motion can truly be understood to 

reflect that the motion is unopposed — for instance, when the 

plaintiff is represented by counsel — we have expressed a 

preference for an assessment of the complaint on its merits.”); 

Tygart v. AM Resorts, LLC, No. 11-3714, 2011 WL 4402549, at *4 

(E.D.Pa. Sept. 22, 2011) (“When a party fails to respond to a 

motion for summary judgment, a court must nevertheless address the 

merits of the unopposed motion.”).

THE COURT will enter an appropriate Order.

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: February 21, 2014

Case 3:11-cv-03730-MLC-TJB Document 33 Filed 02/21/14 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 272