Dist.Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff-prisoner's Rule 60(b) motion to reopen his case after it had been dismissed for want of prosecution. Record showed that: (1) plaintiff sued defendants-prison officials for alleged violations of his constitutional rights; (2) during pendency of his case, plaintiff was released on parole, but did not notify court of his new address or respond to defendants' motions or discovery requests over seven-month period; (3) Dist. Ct. directed plaintiff in screening order to notify it, as well as defendants, of new address if he was released from prison and warned plaintiff that it would not independently investigate his whereabouts; and (4)) Dist. Ct. dismissed case for want of prosecution after seven months of silence from plaintiff. While plaintiff, who returned to different prison after having his parole revoked, argued that his failure to update his address was excusable "clerical error," plaintiff's lengthy period of inaction, as well as need to reschedule discovery and dispositive motion deadlines if case were to be reinstated, supported denial of plaintiff's motion to reinstate his case. Moreover, plaintiff failed to explain his failure to track status of his case, which did not otherwise constitute excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1).
