JACKSON v. HANKS et al

Filing 9

ORDER Vacating re 6 Order, 7 Judgment. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE W LOUIS SANDS on 8/28/2024. (ksl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
STEPHEN LAKEITH JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Sheriff DOUG HANKS, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO: 7:24-CV-61-WLS-TQL

ORDER
On August 6, 2024, this Court ordered (Doc. 6) the dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint
without prejudice on the ground that Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s orders or
otherwise prosecute his case. Specifically, Plaintiff was ordered to pay an initial partial filing
fee of $25.93 within fourteen days of the Court granting his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
(Doc. 4). Plaintiff failed to respond. Therefore, the Court notified Plaintiff that it had not
received a response and ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his action should not be dismissed
for failure to comply with the Court’s prior order. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff was given fourteen days
to respond, and Plaintiff again failed to do so. Thus, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint
without prejudice and a judgment of dismissal was entered accordingly. (Docs. 6, 7).
On August 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause. (Doc. 8).
Therein, Plaintiff asserts that he did not receive notice of the order to pay the initial partial
filing fee until August 16, 2024. (Id.) Plaintiff paid the filing fee of $350 in full on August 26,
2024. (See Unnumbered Docket Entry).
The docket shows that Plaintiff promptly responded to the order he received on
August 16th. (Doc. 8-2). Therefore, the Court finds that through no fault of his own, Plaintiff
did not receive the Order to pay the initial partial filing fee nor the Order to Show Cause until
after the response deadline had run. Accordingly, the Court’s previous Order and Judgment
(Docs. 6-7) are VACATED, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to re-open the above-captioned
case and remand it to the United States Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Plaintiff is
1

reminded of his obligation to inform the Court immediately and in writing of any future
change in his mailing address. The failure to comply with the Court’s future orders and
instructions may result in the dismissal of this action for such failure.
SO ORDERED, this 28th day of August 2024.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
_
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2