Ranson v. Chatham County et al

Filing 9

ORDERED that within fourteen days of the date this Order is served, therefore, Ransom shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 12/8/2015. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
TASHIBA N. RANSOM,
Plaintiff,
Case No. CV414-274

V.

CHATHAM COUNTY et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
Over four months have passed since defendants answered plaintiff
Tashiba Ransom's complaint. See doc. 8 (filed July 27, 2015). Nothing
further has happened in this case. In particular, the parties have not, as
required, conducted a conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(1). Within 14
days of the date this Order is served, therefore, Ransom shall show cause
why this case should not be dismissed on inactivity and, thus,
abandonment grounds.' See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); S.D. Ga. L.R. 41.1(c).
Not knowing the rules of procedure is no excuse for failing to follow them. If legal
ignorance -- even by one's own attorney -- does not stop an execution, then legal
ignorance of Rule 26(f)'s command should not prevent dismissal of a stale lawsuit.
See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752-57 (1991) (condemned prisoner
pursuing State habeas relief waived right to federal review, and thus could be
executed, after his State habeas counsel negligently missed, by 3 days, deadline for
appealing denial of State habeas petition); see also McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S.
106, 113 (1993) ("[W]e have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil

SO ORDERED, this day of December, 2015.

(/?2

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed
without counsel," because "experience teaches that strict adherence to the procedural
requirements specified by the legislature is the best guarantee of evenhanded
administration of the law."); Hixson v. French, 517 F. App'x 767 (11th Cir. 2013) (pro
se plaintiffs required to "apprise themselves of 'the relevant law and rules of court,"
including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) (quoting Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d
835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)).
2