Fountain v. Hunter
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE: case dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and obey the Court's Orders. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. on 9/13/2017 (wld)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
MARK ANTHONY FOUNTAIN,
CAUSE NO. 1:17CV80-LG-RHW
JOHN L. HUNTER
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. Pro se Plaintiff Mark Anthony
Fountain initiated this action on March 17, 2017. At the time, he was incarcerated
with the Mississippi Department of Corrections.
On June 12, 2017, the Court ordered Fountain to respond to certain inquiries
regarding the Complaint, by June 26. Having received no response, on July 10, the
Court entered the Order to Show Cause , ordering Fountain to show cause, by
July 24, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and obey the
Court’s prior Order . When Fountain still failed to respond, the Court entered
the Second Order to Show Cause , on August 7, giving him one last chance to
All Orders were mailed to Fountain’s address of record, and all were returned
as undeliverable and indicating that he has been released. To date he has not
responded, provided a change of address, or otherwise contacted the Court. The
Court has warned Fountain that failure to comply or to keep the Court apprised of
his address may result in this case being dismissed. (2d Order to Show Cause at 12); (1st Order to Show Cause at 1); (Order Requiring Pl. to Respond at 1); (Order
Setting Payment Schedule at 2); (Dkt. 4 at 2); (Dkt. 3 at 2). It is apparent from his
failure to respond or otherwise communicate with the Court that Fountain lacks
interest in pursuing this claim.
The Court has the authority to dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s failure to
prosecute or to obey a Court order under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and under the Court’s inherent authority to dismiss the action sua
sponte. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). 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. 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 629-30. Since Defendant has never been called
upon to respond to the Complaint nor appeared in this action, and since the Court
has not considered the merits of the claims, the case is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, for the reasons
stated above, this case should be and is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and obey the Court’s Orders. A separate
final judgment will be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 13th day of September, 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?