Sikandar v. United States ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------- X : RAZA SIKANDAR, : Plaintiff, : MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER – against – : 23-CV-9515 (AMD) (LB) : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Defendant. : --------------------------------------------------------------- X ANN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge: On December 21, 2023, the pro se plaintiff Raza Sikandar, who is incarcerated at the St. Brides Correctional Center in Virginia, filed this actio n bringing a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act for an alleged assault at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) The plaintiff did not pay the $405 filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a Prisoner Authorization form. O n December 28, 2023, the Clerk’s Office notified the plaintiff of this deficiency and provided hi m with an IFP application and a Prisoner Authorization form. (See ECF No. 2 (Notice of Deficient Filing).) The Clerk’s Office instructed the plaintiff that in order to proceed with this action, he must return the IFP application and the Prisoner Authorization form or the filing fee payment within 14 days from receipt of the Notice. On February 29, 2024, the Court extended the time for the plaintiff to comply by another 30 days and warned the plaintiff that if he did “not comply with this Order within the time allowed, this action will be dismissed without prejudice.” (ECF No. 6 at 2.) To date, the plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or filed a Prisoner Authorization Form. Nor has he communicated with the Court, or provided an updated address.1 Accordingly, the plaintiff’s case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment, close this case and to mail a copy of this order to the plaintiff’s last known address. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3) that any in forma pauperis appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444- 45 (1962). SO ORDERED. s/Ann M. Donnelly ___________________________ ANN M. DONNELLY United States District Judge Dated: Brooklyn, New York April 3, 2024 1 “The duty to inform the Court . . . of any change of address is an obligation that rests with all pro se plaintiffs.” See Citak v. More Consulting Corp., No. 17-CV-6049, 2018 WL 5311411, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases).