Parker v. Hancock County Jail et al
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE: action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to obey the Court's Orders and to prosecute. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 7/11/2017 (wld)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
CHARLES CRAIG PARKER, #68228
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-cv-20-HSO-JCG
HANCOCK COUNTY JAIL, 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 authority, and for the reasons discussed below, the
Court finds that this civil action should be dismissed without prejudice.
Pro se Plaintiff Charles Craig Parker initiated this action on January 25,
2017, while he was incarcerated in the Pearl River County Jail, Poplarville,
On February 21, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge John C.
Gargiulo entered an Order  requiring Plaintiff to file a response, on or before
March 22, 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
Complaint. Order  at 3. Two days later, Plaintiff filed a Change  of Address
and the Court entered an Order  directing the Clerk to mail a copy of the Order
 entered February 21, 2017, to Plaintiff at his new address. That Order 
further directed Plaintiff to file his response on or before March 22, 2017.
did not respond to this Order .
On April 14, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order to Show Cause
 requiring that Plaintiff on or before May 8, 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 Orders [6, 8]; and (2) comply with the Court’s prior Order ,
by filing the required response. Order  at 1-2. Plaintiff was cautioned that
his 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 2.
The envelope  containing the Order to Show Cause  was returned by the
Postal Service with a hand-written notation “Return to Sender no longer at facility”
as well as a stamped notation “return to sender, not deliverable as addressed,
unable to forward.” Plaintiff did not respond to this Order  or provide a change
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 May 31,
2017, the Magistrate Judge entered a Second and Final Order to Show Cause .
The Order  required that on or before June 22, 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; and (2) comply with the Court’s
previous Orders 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 2.
The envelope  containing this Order was returned by the Postal Service with a
hand-written notation “Return to Sender” and a stamped notation “return to
sender, refused, unable to forward.” Plaintiff did not respond to this Order or
provide a change of address.
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 and did not provide a
change of address even after being warned several times that failing to do so might
result in the dismissal of his lawsuit.1
Order  at 2; Order  at 2; Order  at 3;
Order  at 1; Order  at 2; Order  at 2. Plaintiff has not contacted the
record reveals that Plaintiff understood that he was required to provide
a change of address because he previously filed a change of address with the Court.
See Pl.’s Change of Address .
Court since February 23, 2017.
Such inaction represents 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., 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, this the 11th day of July, 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?