The Way International v. The Way Church et al
Order dismissing this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 7/13/2016. (cmj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
THE WAY INTERNATIONAL,
THE WAY CHURCH, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-0432-KD-B
This action is before the Court on sua sponte review. The docket indicates that this action
was filed on August 28, 2015. Defendants Byricus Johnson, Leon Bell and Tomika Bell were
served with the summons and complaint on September 24, 2015 and Defendant The Way Church
was served with the summons and complaint on September 10, 2015 (docs. 6-9). Their answers
were due on October 15, 2015 and October 1, 2015, respectively. No answers or other responses
were filed. On November 24, 2015, Plaintiff applied for default (doc. 10). The Clerk entered
default on December 10, 2015 (doc. 12). Plaintiff obtained a Clerk’s entry of default on
December 10, 2015, but has not moved for a default judgment.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 41(b) for the Southern District of Alabama,
Whenever a served Defendant has failed to answer or otherwise defend within six
(6) months from the filing of the complaint and the Plaintiff has not sought default
and default judgment, the Court upon notice may dismiss the action for failure to
prosecute, in accordance with applicable law.
S.D. Ala. CivLR 41(b).
More than six months has passed since the complaint was filed and Plaintiff had not
sought a default judgment. Therefore, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause on or before July 12,
2016, why this Court should not dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The order to show cause served as notice to the Plaintiff as required by Civil Local Rule 41(b)
that the Court intended to dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute in
accordance with the Court’s inherent authority to manage the cases on its docket and Rule 41(b)1
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff did not file a response to the order to show cause. Accordingly, notice having
been given, this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
See Link v.
Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-32, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1389 (1962) (Finding that inherent power
is “the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the
orderly and expeditious disposition of cases”, rejecting the contention that Rule 41(b) "prohibits
involuntary dismissals for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute except upon motion by the
defendant", and interpreting Rule 41(b) not to restrict the court's inherent power to "dismiss sua
sponte for lack of prosecution"); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43, 111 S.Ct. 2123,
2132, (1991) (A district court has inherent authority to manage its own docket “so as to achieve
the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”); Townsend v. Beck, 295 Fed. Appx. 950,
951-952 (11th Cir. 2008) (A “district court may act on its own motion to dismiss a claim under
Rule 41(b)”) (citing Link, 370 U.S. at 630)).
DONE and ORDERED this the 13th day of July 2016.
s / Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“Involuntary dismissal; Effect. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to
comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any
claim against it.”)
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?