Pope v. City of Bay St. Louis, Mississippi et al
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE: Ordered that this civil action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to obey the Court's Orders and to prosecute. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 8/10/17. (RLW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JVAR VONTOU POPE, #169719
CIVIL NO. 1:16-cv-384-HSO-JCG
CITY OF BAY ST. LOUIS, MISSISSIPPI, ET AL.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This matter is before the Court sua sponte.
After consideration of the record
and relevant legal authority, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court finds
that this civil action should be dismissed without prejudice.
Pro se Plaintiff Jvar Vontou Pope initiated this action on October 24, 2016,
while he was incarcerated in the Harrison County Adult Detention Center,
On April 13, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge John C.
Gargiulo entered an Order  requiring Plaintiff to file a response, on or before
May 5, 2017, providing specific information regarding his claims.
The Order 
warned Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply with the requirements of the
Order or advise the Court of a change of address may lead to the dismissal of the
Order  at 2. Plaintiff did not comply with the Order or otherwise
contact the Court.
On May 23, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order to Show Cause 
requiring that on or before June 14, 2017, Plaintiff: (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 filing the required response. Order  at 1-2. Plaintiff was cautioned that
failure to timely comply with this Order  or his failure to keep the Court
informed of his current address may result in the dismissal of this case. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff did not respond to this Order .
Since Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he was provided one final opportunity to
comply with the Court’s Orders prior to the dismissal of this case. On June 28,
2017, the Magistrate Judge entered a Second and Final Order to Show Cause .
The Order  required that on or before July 19, 2017, Plaintiff: (1) file a written
response, showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure
to comply with the Court’s previous Orders [12, 13]; and (2) comply with the Court’s
previous Orders [12, 13] by filing the required responses. Order  at 1-2.
Plaintiff was again warned that his “failure to timely comply with the Order of the
Court or failure to advise the Court of a change of address will be deemed as a
purposeful delay and contumacious act by Plaintiff and will result in this cause
being dismissed without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff.” Id. at
Plaintiff did not respond to this Order  or otherwise contact the Court about
The 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 calendar 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 after being warned several
times that failing to do so might result in the dismissal of his lawsuit. Order  at
2; Order  at 2; Order  at 4; Order  at 1; Order  at 2; Order  at 3;
Order  at 3.
Plaintiff has not contacted the Court since December 22, 2016.
Such inaction represents a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by
Plaintiff. It is apparent that Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this lawsuit.
the record demonstrates, lesser sanctions than dismissal have not prompted
“diligent prosecution” but instead such efforts have proven futile. See Tello v.
Comm=r., 410 F.3d 743, 744 (5th Cir. 2005). Dismissal without prejudice is
For the reasons stated herein, this civil action will be dismissed without
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that 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 this the 10th day of August, 2017.
s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES 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?