Watkins v. Wright et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 48

MEMORANDUM OPINION: The undersigned concludes this case shall be dismissed without prejudice. A Final Judgment will be entered separately. Signed by Honorable Judge Terry F. Moorer on 8/22/2018. (dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
TANAKIA, WATKINS, #276 768,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEIDRA WRIGHT, WARDEN II, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-643-TFM
[WO]

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on September 26, 2017. On November 2,
2017, the court directed Defendants to file an answer and written report addressing Plaintiff's
claims for relief. In compliance with the court’s order, Defendants submitted answers and written
reports which contained relevant evidentiary materials refuting the allegations in the complaint.
Docs. 34, 36, 37, 40. Upon review of these reports, the court issued an order directing Plaintiff to
file a response to Defendants’ answers and written reports. Doc. 41. The order advised Plaintiff
that her failure to respond to the reports would be treated by the court “as an abandonment of the
claims set forth in the complaint and as a failure to prosecute this action.” Id. at 1. The order
“specifically cautioned [Plaintiff] that [her failure] to file a response in compliance with the
directives of this order” would result in the dismissal of this civil action. Id.
The time allotted Plaintiff for filing a response in compliance with the directives of the
court’s May 23, 2018, order, as extended by order entered June 12, 2018, expired on June 28,
2018. As of the present date, Plaintiff has failed to file a response in opposition to Defendants’
written reports. The court, therefore, concludes this case should be dismissed.

The court has reviewed the file to determine whether a drastic measure less than dismissal
is appropriate. After such review, dismissal is the proper course of action. Plaintiff is an indigent
individual.

The imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against her would be

ineffectual. Plaintiff’s inaction in the face of Defendants’ reports and evidentiary materials
refuting the claims raised suggests she does not seek to proceed with this case. It, therefore,
appears that any additional effort by this court to secure his compliance would be unavailing.
Consequently, the court concludes that Plaintiff’s abandonment of her claims, her failure to comply
with the orders of this court, and her failure to properly prosecute this cause of action warrant
dismissal of this case. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (As a general rule,
where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of
discretion.); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232 Fed.Appx. 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte
dismissal without prejudice of inmate’s § 1983 action for failure to file an amendment to complaint
in compliance with court’s prior order directing amendment and warning of consequences for
failure to comply).
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned concludes this case shall be dismissed without
prejudice.
A Final Judgment will be entered separately.
Done, this 22nd day of August 2018.
/s/Terry F. Moorer
TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2