Corley v. Prentiss Griffith Detention Center et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 50

MEMORANDUM OPINION. A separate order follows. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 2/13/2017. (dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
HERMAN R. CORLEY, JR., #201 605,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHERIFF HEATH TAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-165-CSC
[WO]

MEMORANDUM OPINION1
This pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was removed to his court on March 16, 2015. Plaintiff’s
complaint challenged conditions of his confinement during his incarceration at the Russell County
Jail. On March 23, 2015, the court entered an order of procedure directing Defendants to file an
answer and written report to Plaintiff’s complaint. Doc. 2. That order also instructed Plaintiff to
immediately inform the court and Defendants of any new address and cautioned him that failure
to comply with this requirement would result in the dismissal of this case. Id. at 5, ¶8(h).
It recently came to the court’s attention Plaintiff is no longer at the last address he provided
for service. The court entered an order on January 31, 2017, requiring Plaintiff to show cause why
his complaint should not be dismissed for his failure to keep the court apprised of his current
address as directed in the court’s March 23, 2015, order of procedure. Doc. 49. This order
specifically advised Plaintiff this case could not proceed if his whereabouts remained unknown
and cautioned him that his failure to comply with its directives would result in the dismissal of this
complaint. Id. at 2. The postal service returned Plaintiff’s copy of this order on February 8, 2017,

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the United States
Magistrate Judge.

marked as undeliverable. As of the present date, Plaintiff has not responded to the court’s show
cause order nor provided the court with his current address. The undersigned, therefore, concludes
this case is due to be dismissed.2
The court has reviewed the file to determine whether a measure less drastic than dismissal
is appropriate. See Abreu-Velez v. Board of Regents of Univ. System of Georgia, 248 F. App’x
116, 117-118 (11th Cir. 2007). After such review, the court finds dismissal is the proper course
of action. In making this determination, the court notes Plaintiff has failed to provide the court
with his current address as required by the orders entered in this case and has also failed to show
cause why this case should not be dismissed for such failure. The foregoing suggests that any
further effort by the court to secure Plaintiff’s compliance with its previous orders would be
unavailing and reflects Plaintiff’s lack of interest in the continued prosecution of this case. This
case cannot properly proceed in Plaintiff’s absence.
In light of the foregoing, which evidences willful delay and/or contempt by Plaintiff, the
court concludes his failure to comply with the orders of this court and his apparent abandonment
of this case warrant dismissal. See 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 F. App’x 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming
sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate’s § 1983 action for his failure to comply with
court’s prior order directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply).

2

Although under no obligation to do so, the court undertook a search of the inmate database maintained by the
Alabama Department of Corrections. Available at http://doc.state.al.us/InmateSearch. This search indicated
Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated within the state prison system.
2

A separate order follows.
Done this 13th day of February, 2017.
/s/Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3