Henry v. Unknown
ORDER: Ordered that this case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and obey the Courts Orders. Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. on 11/21/17. (RLW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JAMES TERRY HENRY, # 193563
CAUSE NO. 1:17CV165-LG-RHW
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. Pro se Plaintiff James Terry
Henry initiated this action on May 30, 2017. At the time, he was incarcerated with
the Mississippi Department of Corrections.
On August 25, 2017, the Court ordered Henry to sign his Response  to the
Order Requiring Plaintiff to Respond , by September 8. Receiving nothing
further, on September 25, the Court entered the Order to Show Cause . The
Court ordered Henry to show cause, by October 10, why this case should not be
dismissed for failure to obey the Court’s prior Order . When Henry still did not
comply, the Court then entered the Second Order to Show Cause , on October
24, giving Henry one last chance to comply.
All Orders were mailed to Henry’s address of record. The Order to Sign 
was not returned as undeliverable. However, both Orders to Show Cause were
returned to the Court. The latest returned envelope indicates that Henry has been
released. To date he has not signed his Response, provided a change of address, or
otherwise contacted the Court. The Court has warned Henry that failure to
comply, including keeping the Court apprised of his address, may result in this case
being dismissed. (2d Order to Show Cause  at 1-2); (Order to Show Cause );
(Order to Sign ); (Order Requiring Pl. to Respond ); (Order Setting Payment
Schedule  at 3); (Order  at 2); (Order at  at 2). It is apparent from Henry’s
failure to comply or otherwise communicate with the Court that he 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 21st day of November, 2017.
Louis Guirola, Jr.
LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
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?