STANLEY v. WARD et al

Filing 11

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Because Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court's orders and has otherwise failed to prosecute this case, it is hereby ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Ordered by CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE MARC T TREADWELL on 11/15/2023. (kat)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION ALVIN STANLEY, : : Plaintiff, : : V. : : TIMOTHY C. WARD, et al., : : Defendants. : _________________________________: NO. 5:23-cv-00204-MTT-CHW ORDER Plaintiff Alvin G. Stanley, a prisoner currently held in the Metro Reentry Facility in Atlanta, Georgia, filed a handwritten document, which was docketed in this Court as a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compl., ECF No. 1. Because Plaintiff did not file his complaint on the required § 1983 form designed for use by prisoner litigants, he was ordered to do so. Order, ECF No. 7. Plaintiff was also ordered to file a proper and complete motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. Plaintiff was given fourteen days to file his recast complaint and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and he was cautioned that his failure to do so could result in the dismissal of this action. Id. More than fourteen days passed, and Plaintiff did not take these actions. Therefore, he was ordered to show cause to the Court why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to comply with the previous order. Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 9. Plaintiff was again given fourteen days to respond and cautioned that his failure to do so could result in the dismissal of this case. Id. More than fourteen days passed following the entry of the show cause order, during which Plaintiff did not respond to that order. Indeed, Plaintiff has not communicated with this Court since June 2023. Moreover, although Plaintiff’s mail was not returned in this case, mail sent to Plaintiff at the Dooly County Prison, where he was previously held, was returned in another of Plaintiff’s cases, see Stanley v. Ward, Case No. 5:23-cv-00112MTT-MSH, and a search of the Georgia Department of Corrections Find an Offender website showed that Plaintiff had been moved to the Metro Reentry Facility in Atlanta, Georgia. See Georgia Dep’t of Corrs., Find an Offender, http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/GDC/Offender/Query, Query “Stanley, Alvin” (showing most recent institution as the Metro Reentry Facility) (last visited November 15, 2023). It is Plaintiff’s duty to promptly notify the Court of any address change, and his failure to communicate and keep the Court apprised of his current address constitutes a failure to prosecute this case and may be grounds for dismissal. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, Plaintiff was given a final opportunity to respond to the Court’s orders. Order, ECF No. 10. To that end, the Clerk was directed to update Plaintiff’s address to the Metro Reentry Facility and forward a copy of the show cause order to Plaintiff at that address. Id. Plaintiff was again ordered to file a response to the order to show cause. Id. He was given fourteen days to do so and was cautioned that his failure to comply would likely result in the dismissal of this case. Id. More than fourteen days have now passed since the show cause order was entered, and Plaintiff has not responded to that order. Therefore, because Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s orders and has otherwise failed to prosecute this case, it is hereby 2 ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Lopez v. Aransas Cty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)). SO ORDERED, this 15th day of November, 2023. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3

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?