Lazos v. Easter et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JOSE DANIEL LAZOS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 26-3061-JWL
JEFF EASTER, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the time of filing,
Plaintiff was in custody at the Sedgwick County Jail in Wichita, Kansas (“SCJ”). On March 23,
2026, the Court entered a Notice of Deficiency (Doc. 3) (“NOD”) finding that Plaintiff’s
Complaint was not on the Court-approved form, and that he failed to either pay the filing fee or
submit a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3, at 1.) The NOD ordered Plaintiff
to cure the deficiencies. The Court’s NOD was mailed to Plaintiff at his current address of record
and was returned to the Court as undeliverable with a notation that Plaintiff was no longer in
custody. (Doc. 4.) On April 2, 2026, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause (Doc. 5) (“OSC”)
granting Plaintiff until April 22, 2026, to show good cause why this case should not be dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The OSC was mailed to Plaintiff at the SCJ—
his current address of record—and was also returned as undeliverable with a notation that Plaintiff
was no longer in custody. (Doc. 6.)
The Court noted in the OSC that the Court’s Local Rules provide that “[e]ach attorney or
pro se party must notify the clerk of any change of address or telephone number.” 	D. Kan.
Rule 5.1(b)(3). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a paper is served by “mailing it
Case 5:26-cv-03061-JWL Document 7 Filed 04/23/26 Page 1 of 2

2
to the person’s last known address—in which event service is complete upon mailing.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C). Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with a Notice of Change of Address.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “authorizes a district court, upon a
defendant’s motion, to order the dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or ‘a court order.’” Young v. U.S., 316 F. App’x
764, 771 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). 	“This rule has been interpreted as
permitting district courts to dismiss actions sua sponte when one of these conditions is met.” Id.
(citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962); Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199,
1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003)). “In addition, it is well established in this circuit that a district court is
not obligated to follow any particular procedures when dismissing an action without prejudice
under Rule 41(b).” Young, 316 F. App’x at 771–72 (citations omitted).
Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with a Notice of Change of Address and has failed
to respond to the OSC by the Court’s deadline.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT this matter is dismissed without prejudice
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2)
is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated April 23, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:26-cv-03061-JWL Document 7 Filed 04/23/26 Page 2 of 2