Havard v. George County Correctional Facility et al

Filing 10

Memorandum Opinion and Order of Dismissal: matter is Dismissed without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Taylor B. McNeel on 11/26/2024 (wld)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CASEY THOMAS HAVARD
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-cv-00139-TBM-RPM

GEORGE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before the Court sua sponte on pro se Plaintiff Casey Thomas Havard’s failure
to comply with Court Orders. When he filed his Complaint, Plaintiff was an inmate housed at the
South Mississippi Correctional Institution in Leakesville, Mississippi. [1], p. 2. His claims
purportedly arise under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S. 388 (1971). [1], p. 3.
On July 15, 2024, the Court mailed Plaintiff a packet of information, including code
provisions relevant to the prosecution of this lawsuit. [7], pp. 1-6. Plaintiff was ordered, “that if he
. . . wants to continue with this case,” to “sign the Acknowledgement (Form PSP-3) and return it
to the Clerk of Court within thirty (30) days.” [7], p. 1. Alternatively, Plaintiff was ordered, “that
if he . . . wants to dismiss this case,” to “sign the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Form PSP-4) and
return it to the Clerk of Court within thirty (30) days.” [7], p. 1. Plaintiff was “warned that his . . .
failure to return one or the other of the forms within thirty (30) days and his . . . failure to advise
this court of a change of address . . . may result in this case being dismissed sua sponte, without
prejudice, without further written notice.” [7], p. 2 (emphasis omitted). That Order [7] was mailed
to Plaintiff at his last-known mailing address, and it was not returned to the Court as undeliverable.
Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s Order [7] within 30 days.

On August 22, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be
dismissed for his failure to comply with a Court Order. [8], p. 1. Plaintiff’s responsive deadline was
extended to September 5, 2024, and he was warned again “that failure 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 to Plaintiff.” [8], p. 2. The
Order to Show Cause [8], with a copy of the Court’s July 15 Order [7], was mailed to Plaintiff at
his last-known mailing address, and it was not returned to the Court as undeliverable. Plaintiff did
not comply with the Court’s Order [8] by the September 5 deadline.
On September 17, 2024, the Court entered a Second and Final Order to Show Cause [9],
directing Plaintiff to “explain why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the
Court’s Orders [8] [7].” [9], p. 2. Plaintiff was ordered to file a written response on or before
October 1, 2024. [9], p. 2. Plaintiff was also ordered, on or before the October 1 deadline, to comply
with the Court’s July 15 Order [7] “by signing and returning either the Acknowledgement (Form
PSP-3) or Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Form PSP-4).” [9], p. 2. Plaintiff was warned 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 be deemed a purposeful delay and contumacious act and will result in this lawsuit
being dismissed without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff.” [9], p. 2 (emphasis in
original). Plaintiff was cautioned that this was his “final opportunity to comply with the Court’s
Orders [8] [7].” [9], p. 2. The Second and Final Order to Show Cause [9], with a copy of the
Court’s July 15 Order [7] and August 22 Order [8], was mailed to Plaintiff at his last-known mailing
address, and it was not returned to the Court as undeliverable.

2

Plaintiff did not timely comply with the Second and Final Order to Show Cause [9], and he
has not communicated with the Court about his lawsuit since July 15, 2024. [6], p. 1. This inaction
is despite being warned five times that a failure to comply with the Court’s orders or to notify the
Court about a change in address may lead to the dismissal of his case. See [3], p. 2; [5], p. 2; [7], p.
2; [8], p. 2; [9], 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, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962); see also McCullough
v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). “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.” Fauzi v. Royal Hospitality Services,
LLC, No. 1:14-cv-83-HSO-RHW, 2016 WL 3166581, at *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 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 three Court Orders [7] [8] [9], 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.

3

THIS, the 26th day of November, 2024.
_____________________________
TAYLOR B. McNEEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4