v. Brown et al
Memorandum Opinion and ORDER finding as moot 33 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 42 Motion for Leave to File. Ordered that this case is dismissed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on 1/10/17. (RLW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EDDIE JOSEPH BROWN #87813
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-cv-212-RHW
JACQUELINE BANKS, et al.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
This cause is before the Court sua sponte for consideration of dismissal. The parties
consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, and the case was reassigned to the undersigned for all
purposes. ,  Plaintiff Eddie Joseph Brown, an inmate of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections, filed this pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the Court
initially granted Brown leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), the undersigned revoked
Brown’s IFP status on November 3, 2016 due to his having accumulated three strikes. In Order
, the Court directed Brown to pay the filing fee by December 5, 2016, and expressly warned
Brown that failure to timely pay the filing fee would result in the dismissal of this action.
Brown did not pay the filing fee in this Court, and his deadline for doing so has expired.
This Court has the authority to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute and
failure to comply with court orders under FED.R.CIV.P. 41(b) and under the Court’s inherent
authority. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962); Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030,
1032 (5th Cir. 1998); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). The Court
must be able to clear its calendar of cases that remain dormant because of the inaction or
dilatoriness of parties seeking relief, so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases. Link, 370 U.S. at 630. Such a sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in
the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars” of the Court. Id. at
The Court concludes dismissal of this action is proper under FED.R.CIV.P. 41(b) for
Brown’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Order  and failure to pay the filing
fee. See Rice v. Doe, 306 F.Appx. 144, 146 (5th Cir. 2009) (affirming dismissal based on an
inmate’s failure to comply with a court order); Davis v. Gordon, 2003 WL 22120979 (5th Cir.
September 12, 2003) (affirming dismissal of prisoner’s case for failure to pay the filing fee).
This disposition renders moot  Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and  Brown’s
motion to enter the declaration of a fellow inmate to the effect that Brown sought to borrow food
from the inmate from March-May, 2015.1 It is therefore,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is dismissed, thereby rendering moot
motions  and . A final judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum
Opinion and Order.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 10th day of January, 2017.
Robert H. Walker
ROBERT H. WALKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Brown’s complaint in the lawsuit is that lights were left on in the prison, leaving him unable to
sleep at night, so he slept during the daytime and sometimes slept through, and missed meals.
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?