Hammons v. Fairley et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL: Ordered that this case is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Taylor B. McNeel on 9/16/22 (JCH)

Case 1:22-cv-00093-TBM-RPM Document 13 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JEFFERY HAMMONS
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:22-cv-93-TBM-RPM

BOBBY C. FAIRLEY, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before the Court sua sponte on pro se Plaintiff Jeffery Hammons’s failure to
comply with Court Orders. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on April 19, 2022. [1]. On April 25, 2022,
Plaintiff was ordered [3] to either pay the required filing fee or file a completed application for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis on or before May 25, 2022. Plaintiff timely filed a Motion for Leave to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis [4], which the Court granted [7]. The Court also sent Plaintiff notice of
the Prison Litigation Reform Act and ordered [5] Plaintiff to sign and file an Acknowledgement of
Receipt and Certification or the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Form, which was also mailed to
him. This Order warned Plaintiff that “failure to advise this court of a change of address . . . may
result in this case being dismissed sua sponte, without prejudice, and without further notice.” [5],
p. 2. Plaintiff timely complied with the Order [5] and filed a signed Acknowledgement of Receipt
and Certification [6].
On August 2, 2022, the Court entered an Order [9] requiring Plaintiff to file a written
response to clarify certain aspects of this lawsuit on or before August 16, 2022. Plaintiff was warned
again that “[f]ailure to advise the Court of a change of address or failure to timely comply with any
order of the Court . . . may result in this lawsuit being dismissed without prejudice and without
further notice.” [9], p. 2. This Order [9] was mailed to Plaintiff at his last-known address, and it

Case 1:22-cv-00093-TBM-RPM Document 13 Filed 09/16/22 Page 2 of 3

was returned to the Court as undeliverable. [10]. Plaintiff did not comply with the Order [9] or
notify the Court of a change of address.
The Court then entered an Order to Show Cause [11] requiring Plaintiff to demonstrate on
or before September 7, 2022, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the
Court’s Order [9]. The Order to Show Cause [11] warned Plaintiff again “[t]hat failure to advise
the Court of a change of address or failure to timely comply with any order of the Court . . . will
result in this lawsuit being dismissed without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff.”
[11], p. 2. The Order to Show Cause [11] was mailed to Plaintiff at his last-known address, and it
was also returned to the Court as undeliverable. [12]. Plaintiff did not timely comply with the Order
to Show Cause [11], and he has not communicated with the Court about his lawsuit since June 8,
2022—despite being warned five times that a failure to comply or notify the Court about a change
in address may lead to the dismissal of his case. See [3], p. 2; [5], p. 2; [7], pp. 2-3; [9], p. 3; [11], p.
2.
The Court may dismiss an action for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b) and the Court’s “‘inherent power’ . . . to manage [its] own affairs.” Link v.
Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962); see also 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 party seeking relief, so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases.” Fauzi v. Royal Hospitality Services, LLC, No. 1:14-cv-83-HSO-RHW, 2016
WL 3166581, *2 (S.D. Miss. Jun. 6, 2016) (citing Link, 370 U.S. at 630). “Such a ‘sanction is
necessary to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in
the calendars’ of the Court.” Id. (quoting Link, 370 U.S. at 630-31). In this case, lesser sanctions

2

Case 1:22-cv-00093-TBM-RPM Document 13 Filed 09/16/22 Page 3 of 3

than dismissal have not prompted “diligent prosecution” but have instead “proved to be futile.”
See Tello v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 410 F.3d 743, 744 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting Berry v.
CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir. 1992)).
Since Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Orders [9] [11], the Court finds that
this case should be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for
failure to prosecute and for failing to respond to a Court order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This CASE is CLOSED.
THIS, the 16th day of September, 2022.

_____________________________
TAYLOR B. McNEEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3