Collins v. Zmuda et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JEREMY LEE COLLINS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 25-3077-JWL
JEFF ZMUDA, 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 incarcerated at the Winfield Correctional Facility in Winfield, Kansas. 	The Court
granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 	On July 14, 2025, the Court entered a
Memorandum and Order to Show Cause (Doc. 10) (“MOSC”) ordering Plaintiff to show good
cause why this action should not be dismissed for the reasons set forth in the MOSC. 	Plaintiff
filed a Notice of Change of Address (Doc. 12) advising the Court that he was released from prison
on August 25, 2025, for post-release supervision purposes. 	On September 11, 2025, the Court
entered a Memorandum and Order (Doc. 13) (“M&O”) staying this case pending resolution of
Plaintiff’s pending state court proceedings. The M&O provides that “Plaintiff should notify the
Court when all of his state court proceedings have concluded.” (Doc. 13, at 5.)
The Court’s M&O was mailed to Plaintiff at his address of record and was returned to the
Court as undeliverable with a notation that Plaintiff was no longer at this address. (Doc. 14.) 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 to the person’s last known address—in
which event service is complete upon mailing.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C). 	Plaintiff failed to
Case 5:25-cv-03077-JWL Document 17 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 2

2
provide the Court with a Notice of Change of Address and failed to notify the Court regarding his
state court proceedings. 	Therefore, on January 14, 2026, the Court entered an Order to Show
Cause (Doc. 15) (“OSC”) granting Plaintiff until January 29, 2026, to show good cause why this
case should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 	The Court’s
OSC was returned as undeliverable with a notation that Plaintiff was no longer at this address.
(Doc. 16.)
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 SO ORDERED.
Dated February 2, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-03077-JWL Document 17 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 2