Bohannon v. Mississippi Department of Corrections et al
ORDER OF DISMISSAL: Ordered that this civil action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to obey the Court's Orders and to prosecute. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. on 2/27/17. (RLW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SEDRICK DEWAYNE BOHANNON
CAUSE NO. 1:16CV313LG-RHW
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. After consideration of the record
in this case and relevant legal authorities, and for the reasons discussed below, the
Court finds that this civil action should be dismissed without prejudice.
Pro se Plaintiff Sedrick Dewayne Bohannon initiated this action on August
24, 2016, while he was incarcerated at the South Mississippi Correctional
Institution, Leakesville, Mississippi. (Compl. 1, ECF No. 1). On October 5, 2016,
Plaintiff filed a change of address  reflecting his release from incarceration. On
October 24, 2016, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order  directing Plaintiff to
file a response to provide specific information regarding his claims on or before
November 23, 2016. Plaintiff was cautioned that his “failure to advise this Court of
a change of address or his failure to timely comply with this order or any other
order of this Court . . . may result in this cause being dismissed without prejudice.”
Order  at 2. Plaintiff failed to comply with this Order or otherwise contact the
On December 12, 2016, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order to Show
Cause  requiring that Plaintiff, on or before January 3, 2017: (1) file a written
response, showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure
to comply with the Court’s prior Order ; and (2) comply with the Court’s prior
Order  by providing the required additional information concerning his claims.
Order  at 1-2. Plaintiff was once again cautioned that his “failure to advise the
Court of a change of address or failure to timely comply with any order of the Court
. . . may result in this cause being dismissed without prejudice.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff
did not comply.
Since Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he was provided one final opportunity to
comply with the Court’s Order prior to the dismissal of this case. On January 17,
2017, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause requiring Plaintiff, on or before
February 10, 2017: (1) to file a written response, showing cause why this case
should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Orders
[10, 11] entered October 24, 2016, and December 12, 2016; and (2) to comply with
the Court’s Orders [10, 11], by filing a response as set forth in the Order. Order 
at 1-3. Plaintiff was warned that his “failure to timely comply with this Order or
his failure to keep this Court informed of his current address . . . will result in this
cause being dismissed without further notice to the Plaintiff.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff
failed to comply with the Order to Show Cause  or otherwise contact the Court.
This Court has the authority to dismiss an action for Plaintiff’s failure to
prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and under its inherent
authority to dismiss the action sua sponte. See Link v. Wabash Railroad, 370 U.S.
626, 630-31 (1962); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988).
The Court must be able to clear its calendars of cases that remain dormant because
of the inaction or dilatoriness of the 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 630-31.
Plaintiff did not comply with three Court Orders even after being warned
several times that failing to comply with a court order would result in the dismissal
of his lawsuit. Order  at 2; Order  at 3; Order  at 3. Plaintiff has not
contacted the Court since October 5, 2016, when he filed his notice  of a change of
address. Such inaction presents a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by
Plaintiff. It is apparent to the Court that Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this
lawsuit. As the record demonstrates, lesser sanctions than dismissal have not
prompted “diligent prosecution” but instead such efforts have proven futile. See
Tello v. Comm’r. of Internal Revenue, 410 F.3d 743, 744 (5th Cir. 2005). Dismissal
without prejudice is warranted.
For the reasons stated herein, this civil action will be dismissed without
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, for the reasons
stated above, this civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure
to obey the Court’s Orders and to prosecute. A separate final judgment will be
entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 27th day of February, 2017.
Louis Guirola, Jr.
LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
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?