Dean v. Olson, et al (INMATE 2)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that this case be and is hereby dismissed for the plaintiff's abandonment of his claims, failure to prosecute this action and failure to comply with the orders of the court. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on May 12, 2015. (scn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
DEDRIC JAMAR DEAN,
WALLY OLSON, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12cv849-CSC
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
The plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on October 2, 2012. At that time, he
was incarcerated at the Dale County Jail located in Ozark, Alabama. On April 22, 2015, the
envelope containing the plaintiff’s copy of an order filed on April 9, 2015, was returned to
the court marked as undeliverable because the plaintiff is no longer at the address he had
provided to the court.1
All parties have an affirmative duty to inform this court of any change of address
during the pendency of their actions. The plaintiff was provided notice of this requirement
in the court’s October 4, 2012 order of procedure. See Doc. # 4 at 6, ¶ h. Upon review of
the pleadings filed in this matter, it is clear that the court file does not contain an alternate
address for the plaintiff and he has not provided this court with a current address.2 On April
On March 5, 2014, April 24, 2014 and February 19, 2015, the plaintiff notified the court of
changes in his address. See Docs. # 47, 48 & 49.
The court has accessed the Alabama Department of Corrections website which indicates that the
plaintiff is not currently incarcerated. See http://www.doc.state.al.us/InmateInfo.aspx (last accessed on April
23, 2015, the court issued an order directing the plaintiff on or before May 7, 2015, to show
cause why this case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. (Doc. # 53). The
plaintiff was specifically cautioned that if he failed to respond as required by the order, the
court would treat his failure to respond as an abandonment of the claims set forth in the
complaint and as a failure to prosecute this action and the undersigned would recommend
that this case be dismissed for such failure. The plaintiff has filed nothing in response to the
orders of the court. In addition, on May 4, 2015, the envelope containing the plaintiff’s copy
of the court’s April 23, 2015, order was returned to the court marked as undeliverable
because the plaintiff is no longer at the address he had provided to the court. The court
therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed for want of prosecution.
The court has reviewed the file in this case to determine whether less drastic
sanctions than dismissal are appropriate and finds that under the facts of this case dismissal
is the proper sanction. When the case was filed, the plaintiff was an indigent state inmate.
Moreover, the plaintiff has exhibited a lack of respect for this court and its authority as he
has failed to respond to the orders entered in this case. It is therefore clear that any additional
effort by this court to procure the plaintiff’s compliance would be unavailing. Thus, the
court finds that the imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against the plaintiff
would be ineffectual. Consequently, the court concludes that the plaintiff’s abandonment of
his claims, his failure to comply with the orders of this court and his failure to prosecute this
cause of action warrant dismissal of this case. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and M.D.
Ala. LR 73.1, the parties have consented to a United States Magistrate Judge conducting all
proceedings in this case and ordering the entry of final judgment. (Doc. # 36).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that this case be and is hereby
dismissed for the plaintiff’s abandonment of his claims, failure to prosecute this action and
failure to comply with the orders of the court.
A separate judgment will be entered.
Done this 12th day of May, 2015.
/s/ Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?