RUSHIN v. CALDWELL et al
ORDER denying as moot 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying as moot 6 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; and, Dismissing Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE C ASHLEY ROYAL on 5/1/17 (lap)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
RONALD EARLE RUSHIN,
WARDEN CALDWELL, et al.,
CIVIL NO. 5:16-CV-00543-CAR-CHW
Pro se Plaintiff Ronald Earle Rushin, who is presently confined at the Coffee
Correctional Facility in Nicholls, Georgia, filed a pleading and several other documents
that led the Court to believe he may be attempting to file a complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Because the relief sought was unclear, however, on January 27, 2017, the
United States Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to recast his complaint on the Court’s
standard form. Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply with the Magistrate
Judge’s Order could result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s action, and he was also directed to
inform the Court of any change in his mailing address. Plaintiff was given twenty-one
(21) days to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s Order. ECF No. 9 at 1-2.
Plaintiff failed to file a recast complaint within the time allotted, but he did file a
document in which he stated that his “state writ of mandamus (ECF No. 1) was filed in
wrong courts” and that he would be “redirecting all papers that has been filed in (Macon
Division) to be sent to Wilcox County Superior Courthouse[.]” ECF No. 10 at 1. Thus,
on March 28, 2017, the Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff that if he wished to dismiss the
above-captioned case because it had been filed in the wrong court, he could file a notice
of voluntary dismissal with the Court; otherwise, Plaintiff should respond and show cause
why his lawsuit should not be dismissed for his failure to file a recast complaint as
ordered. Plaintiff was again given twenty-one (21) days to respond, reminded of his
obligation to inform the Court of any change in address, and warned that failure to
respond would result in the dismissal of his Complaint. ECF No. 13 at 1-2.
The time for compliance with the show cause order passed with no response from
Accordingly, because of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s
instructions and orders, his failure to otherwise diligently prosecute this action, and
because it does not appear his claims would be barred by the applicable statute of
limitations, his Complaint shall be DISMISSED without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
41; see also Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep't, 205 F. App'x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006)
(per curiam) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to
prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”) (citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch.
Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir.1978)). Plaintiff’s pending motions (ECF Nos. 4, 6) are
DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED, this 1st day of May, 2017.
S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?