Peri v. Pearl River County, Mississippi et al
ORDER: Ordered that this civil action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to obey the Courts Orders and to prosecute. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 8/30/17. (RLW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
KEITH MICHAEL PERI, JR.
CIVIL NO. 1:17-cv-82-HSO-JCG
PEARL RIVER COUNTY, 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 Keith Michael Peri, Jr. initiated this action on March 22,
2017, while he was incarcerated in the Pearl River County Jail, in Poplarville,
On April 21, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo
entered two Orders [8, 9]. One of the Orders  granted Peri’s Motions [2, 6] to
proceed in forma pauperis and set a payment schedule as required by 28 U.S.C.
The other Order  required Peri to file a response, on or before May
15, 2017, providing specific information regarding his claims. Order  at 2. This
Order  warned Peri 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. Id. Both Orders [8, 9] were mailed to Peri at his last known address.
The envelope  containing the Orders [8, 9] entered April 21, 2017, was returned
with a stamped notation “Return to Sender.” Mail Returned  at 1. On May 5,
2017, Peri filed a change of address. See Pl.’s Notice .
On May 8, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order  granting Peri
an extension of time to comply with the April 21, 2017, Order , and directed Peri
to comply on or before May 30, 2017, by providing specific information concerning
The Magistrate Judge further directed the Clerk to mail a copy of the
Orders [8, 9] entered April 21, 2017, to Peri at his last known address.
That Order  also warned Peri that failure to timely comply or failure to
provide a change of address could result in this civil action being dismissed. Id. at
When Peri failed to comply with the Order  entered May 8, 2017, an
Order to Show Cause  was entered on June 13, 2017, requiring that on or before
July 6, 2017, Peri: (1) file a written response, showing cause why this case should
not be dismissed for Peri’s failure to comply with the Court’s prior Orders [9, 13];
and (2) comply with the Court’s prior Orders [9, 13], by filing the required response.
Order  at 1-2.
Peri 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 2.
Peri did not respond to this Order .
Since Peri 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 July 21,
2017, the Magistrate Judge entered a Second and Final Order to Show Cause .
The Order  required that on or before August 14, 2017, Peri: (1) file a written
response, showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for Peri’s failure to
comply with the Court’s previous Orders [9, 13, 14]; and (2) comply with the Court’s
previous Orders [9, 13, 14] by filing the required response.
Order  at 1-2.
was 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.
Peri did not respond
to this Order  or otherwise contact the Court about this case.
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.
Peri did not comply with multiple 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 2; Order  at 2; Order  at 2; Order  at 2; Order
 at 2. Peri has not contacted the Court since May 5, 2017.
represents a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by Peri.
that Peri no longer wishes to pursue this lawsuit.
It is apparent
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 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 30th 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?