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)

Download PDF
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

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?