Clark v. Harris et al (INMATE 1)
OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/30/17. (djy, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
DANIEL BARTHOLOMEW CLARK,
P. HARRIS, Captain,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
state inmate, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint
Complaint (doc. no. 1) at 3.
filed in the instant case, Clark II (Clark v. Harris,
identical to claims filed in a case with a lower civil
action number, Clark I (Clark v. Harris, et al., Civil
Action No. 2:17-CV-514-MHT-WC).
that case due to the resolution of the issues that form
the basis of both of the above-cited cases, and this
court dismissed that case.
Based on the notice of
voluntary dismissal filed in Clark I, the court entered
an order in this case, Clark II, requiring Clark to
“advise the court of whether he seeks to dismiss this
cause of action – Clark v. Harris, et al. Civil Action
issues currently pending before this court have been
cautioned Clark that “if he files no response to this
order the undersigned will recommend that this case be
dismissed for such failure and/or due to the resolution
allowed Clark to file a response to the aforementioned
order expired on November 14, 2017.
As of the present
date, Clark has filed no response to this order.
The court has undertaken a thorough review of the
file to determine whether a less drastic measure than
dismissal is appropriate.
See Abreu-Velez v. Board of
Regents of Univ. System of Georgia, 248 F. App’x 116,
117-18 (11th Cir. 2007).
After such review, the court
finds that dismissal of this case, Clark II, is the
proper course of action.
Initially, Clark failed to
comply with the directives of the order that he advise
the court of whether he seeks to proceed with this
In addition, it appears that, because of the
resolution of the issues, Clark is no longer interested
in the prosecution of this case.
For the foregoing
reasons, the court concludes that this case, Clark II,
is due to be dismissed.
See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d
835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding that, as a general
rule, where a litigant has been forewarned dismissal
for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of
An appropriate judgement will be entered.
DONE, this the 30th day of November, 2017.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?