Porter v. Cunningham et al

Filing 6

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that case be dismissed re 1 Complaint filed by Carnell Porter Objections to R&R due by 12/29/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 12/11/2008. (mah)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

CARNELL PORTER and STANLEY NIXON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Case No. CV408-182

BILLY CUNNINGHAM, GREGORY ERNST, CHADWICK HUGHES, SEAN ORGAN, and ANTONIO TAHARKA,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiffs Carnell Porter and Stanley Nixon filed a joint complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several Savannah-Chatham County

police officers. (Doc. 1 at 8.) On September 15, 2008, the Court ordered

plaintiffs to show cause why their case should not be dismissed and

directed them to file a new complaint signed by both plaintiffs (the first

complaint was signed by Porter alone, in violation of Rule 11(a) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). (Doc. 3.) Due to a mailing address

mix-up, the order was not sent to the proper address until October 20,

2008. Plaintiffs were directed to submit a corrected complaint and

respond to the show cause order within twenty days. (Id.) Nearly a full

month has passed since the order was mailed, but plaintiffs have not

responded.

A district court retains the inherent power to police its docket and

to enforce its orders. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.s. 626, 630-31

(1962); Mingo v. 5ugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir.

1989); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983); Brown v.

Tallahassee Police Dept., 2005 F. App'x 802, 802-3 (11th Cir. 2006).

Additionally, this Court's Local Rules provide that the Court may dismiss

an action for want of prosecution when a party has "willful Ely]

disobeEyed] . . . any order of the Court" or for "Ea]ny other failure to

prosecute a civil action with reasonable promptness." L.R. 41.1 (b), (c).

"EO]nce a pro se IFP litigant is in court, he is subject to the relevant law

and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). It follows that

"Et]hese rules provide for sanctions . . . for failure to comply with court

orders," and a pro se litigant "is and should be subject to sanctions like

any other litigant." Id.

2

Plaintiffs' disregard of an order of this Court warrants a dismissal

of their action under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

No lesser sanction short of dismissal appears appropriate given plaintiffs'

lack of interest in responding to this Court's orders. Mingo, 864 F.2d at

102; Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1534 (11th Cir. 1985).

SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED this11th day of

December, 2008.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3