HARRIS v. DEAL et al

Filing 37

ORDER DISMISSING 1 Complaint and DENYING as moot 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; DENYING as moot 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; DENYING as moot 4 Motion for Emergency Federal Protective Custody Appoint Legal Guardian; DENYING as moot 7 Motion to Appoint Legal Guardian; DENYING as moot 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; DENYING as moot 9 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; DENYING as moot 16 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; DENYING as moot 17 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; DENYING as moot 18 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE C ASHLEY ROYAL on 1/8/2016. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
CHARLES HARRIS,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
VS.
:
:
Governor NATHAN DEAL, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
________________________________ :

NO. 5:15-CV-339-CAR-CHW

ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Charles Harris filed a complaint and numerous amended
complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 but did not pay the filing fee or file a proper motion
to proceed without the prepayment of the filing fee. Accordingly, the United States
Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to submit a proper and complete motion to proceed in
forma pauperis.

Plaintiff was also ordered to recast his complaint on the Court’s

standard § 1983 form. Plaintiff was instructed that if he did not timely and fully comply
with the Court’s order, his action would be dismissed. Plaintiff was also instructed that if
he wished to withdraw his complaint without paying the filing fee, he should file a
motion to dismiss the action. Plaintiff was given twenty-one (21) days to respond to the
Court’s order. Plaintiff was further directed to notify the Court of any change of address.
(Order 1-2, Sept. 29, 2015, ECF No. 35.)
When Plaintiff failed to comply within twenty-one days, the Magistrate Judge
ordered Plaintiff to respond and show cause why his lawsuit should not be dismissed for
failure to comply with the Court’s orders. Plaintiff’s response was due within twenty-one

(21) days of the date of the Order and Plaintiff was again advised that failure to respond
would result in dismissal of his pleading. (Order 1-2, Dec. 3, 2015, ECF No. 36.)
The time for compliance has again passed without a response from Plaintiff. A
district court may dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a
court order. See Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep't, 205 F. App'x 802, 802 (11th Cir.
2006) (per curiam). Thus, because of Plaintiff’s failure to pay the required filing fee,
failure to comply with the Court's instructions and orders, and failure to otherwise
diligently prosecute this action, his complaint shall be DISMISSED and all pending
motions shall be DENIED as moot. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. This dismissal is without
prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this 8th day of January, 2016.

C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2