Jackson v. Peterson et al
Filing
13
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 6/21/17. (JCH)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
COREY DEVON JACKSON
v.
PLAINTIFF
CAUSE NO. 1:17-cv-43-LG-RHW
TROY PETERSON, et al.
DEFENDANTS
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.
I.
BACKGROUND
Pro Se Plaintiff Corey Devon Jackson brings this conditions of confinement
Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the time of filing this action, Jackson
was incarcerated at the Harrison County Adult Detention Center in Gulfport,
Mississippi.
A. Notice of Assignment
On February 24, 2017, the Clerk issued a Notice of Assignment [Ex. 1-1]
advising Jackson that he was required to notify the Court in writing if his address
changed and it also warned Jackson that his failure to advise the Court of a change
of address or his failure to timely comply with any order of the Court would be
deemed a purposeful delay and contumacious act that may result in the dismissal of
this case.
The Notice of Assignment was mailed to Jackson at the Harrison County
Adult Detention Center, which is the address Jackson provided in his Complaint.
Compl. [1] at 1-3.
On March 6, 2017, the envelope [4] containing the Notice of
Assignment was returned by the postal service with the label “return to sender –
refused – unable to forward.”
Ret. Mail [4]. The envelope also had a handwritten
notation stating “RTS not here.”
B.
Id.
Order of February 27, 2017
On February 27, 2017, the Court entered an Order [3] advising Jackson of
certain provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The Order directed Jackson
to file an Acknowledgment of Receipt and Certification if he wished to continue with
this lawsuit, or a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, within thirty days. The Order [3]
warned Plaintiff that failure to timely comply or failure to keep the Court informed
of his current address may lead to the dismissal of his Complaint.
The Order was
mailed to Jackson at the Harrison County Adult Detention Center.
On March 7,
2017, the envelope [5] containing the Order was returned by the postal service with
the label “return to sender – refused – unable to forward.”
Ret. Mail [5]. The
envelope also had a handwritten notation stating “released 2-02-2017.”
Id.
Jackson did not contact the Court to provide a current address and he did not
comply with the Order [3] of February 27, 2017.
C. Show Cause Order of April 12, 2017
On April 12, 2017, the Court entered a Show Cause Order [6] directing
Jackson to show cause, on or before April 26, 2017, why this case should not be
2
dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court=s previous Order [3]. The Show
Cause Order [6] warned Jackson that failure to timely comply or failure to advise
the Court of a change of address would result in the dismissal of this case. The
Order was mailed to Jackson at the Harrison County Adult Detention Center. On
April 21, 2017, the envelope [9] containing the Show Cause Order [6] was returned
by the postal service with the label “return to sender – refused – unable to forward.”
Ret. Mail [9].
D.
Jackson’s Letter and the Court Order of April 20, 2017
On April 19, 2017, Jackson filed an unsigned letter [7] stating that his current
address is the address of the Hancock County Public Safety Complex.
The
envelope [7-1] containing Jackson’s letter was stamped with a form notation stating
that the correspondence is sent by an inmate of the Hancock County Public Safety
Complex.
On April 20, 2017, the Court entered an Order [8] directing the Clerk to mail
Jackson a copy of his unsigned letter [7], a copy of the Order [3] of February 27,
2017, and a copy of the Show Cause Order [6] to Jackson at his new address.
The
Order [8] directed Jackson to file a response that addresses the requirements of the
Court’s previous Orders [3], [6], on or before May 4, 2017. See Order [8] at 1.
The
Order [8] also directed Jackson to sign his letter [7] and return it to the Court for
filing no later than May 4, 2017.
The Order [8] warned Jackson that his failure to
timely file a response that fully complies with the Court’s Orders will result in the
3
dismissal of this case without further written notice.
Id. at 2. The Order was
mailed to Jackson at the Hancock County Public Safety Complex.
Jackson did
comply with this Order [8] or otherwise contact the Court.
E.
Show Cause Order of May 24, 2017
On May 24, 2017, the Court entered a Show Cause Order [11] directing
Jackson to show cause, on or before June 7, 2017, why this case should not be
dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court=s previous Orders. The Show
Cause Order [11] directed the Clerk to mail copies of all previous Orders [3],[6],[8],
to Jackson and further directed Jackson to file a response that addresses the
requirements of the previous Orders on or before June 7, 2017.
The Show Cause
Order [11] also warned Jackson that “his failure to timely file a response that fully
complies with the Court’s Orders will result in the dismissal of this case without
further notice to the Plaintiff.”
Order [11] at 2 (emphasis in the original).
The
Order and attached copies were mailed to Jackson at the Hancock County Public
Safety Complex.
On June 5, 2017, the envelope [12] containing the Show Cause
Order [11] and attachments was returned by the postal service with a handwritten
notation stating “Return to Sender – No longer at this facility.”
II.
Id.
DISCUSSION
This Court has the authority to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to
prosecute and failure to comply with court orders under Rule 41(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and under its inherent authority. See Link v. Wabash
4
R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962); Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030 (5th Cir.1998);
McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126 (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 Asanction 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 629-30.
Jackson has failed to keep this Court advised of his current address and he has
failed to comply with four Court Orders [3], [6], [8], [11]. Jackson has not contacted
the Court since April 19, 2017. As the record demonstrates, lesser sanctions than
dismissal have not prompted Adiligent prosecution,@ but instead such efforts have
proven futile. See Tello v. Comm=r of Internal Revenue, 410 F.3d 743, 744 (5th Cir.
2005). Docketing another show cause order would likewise be futile when Jackson
has failed to provide a valid address. Therefore, the Court concludes that dismissal
of this action is proper for Jackson=s failure to prosecute and for failure to comply
with the Orders of the Court under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See Rice v. Doe, 306 F. App=x 144, 146 (5th Cir. 2009) (affirming
dismissal based on inmate=s failure to comply with a court order). Since the
Defendants have not been called on to respond to Jackson=s pleading, and the Court
has not considered the merits of Jackson=s claims, the Court=s Order of Dismissal is
5
without prejudice. See Munday/Elkins Auto. Partners, Ltd. v. Smith, 201 F. App=x
265, 267 (5th Cir. 2006).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, this civil action will be dismissed without
prejudice.
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 AND ADJUDGED this the 21st day of June, 2017.
s/
Louis Guirola, Jr.
LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?