Broadus v. State of Mississippi et al
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION - This action is dismissed without prejudice for Petitioner's failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Orders of the Court. A final Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 4/30/12 (scp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION
LEE EARL BROADUS
PETITIONER
versus
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-251-KS-MTP
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, et al.
RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner, an inmate at the Covington County Jail, Collins, Mississippi, filed a Petition for
habeas corpus relief. On January 11, 2012, an order [ECF No. 6] was entered directing
Petitioner to file an amended petition, on or before February 1, 2012. The Petitioner was warned
in the Court's order that failure to keep this Court informed of his current address or failure to
timely comply with the requirements of the order would lead to the dismissal of his case. The
Petitioner failed to comply with this order.
On February 24, 2012, an order [ECF No. 7] to show cause was entered. Petitioner was
directed to file a written response showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for his
failure to comply with the previous order [ECF No. 6], on or before March 10, 2012. The
Petitioner was warned in the Court's order that failure to keep this Court informed of his current
address or failure to timely comply with the requirements of the order would lead to the
dismissal of his case. On March 2, 2012, the envelope [ECF No. 8] containing the order to show
cause was returned by the postal service with the notation “return to sender - not deliverable as
addressed - unable to forward.”
Since Petitioner is incarcerated and proceeding pro se, he was provided one final
opportunity to comply with the Court's Orders prior to summary dismissal of this case. On
March 28, 2012, the Court entered a Final Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 9] which directed
Petitioner to file a written response showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for his
failure to comply with the Orders of January 11, 2012, and February 24, 2012. Petitioner was
also directed to file his amended petition on or before April 12, 2012. The Final Order to Show
Cause warned Petitioner that his failure to keep this Court informed of his current address or
failure to timely comply with the order would result in the dismissal of this case without further
notice to the Petitioner. On April 2, 2012, the envelope [ECF No. 10] containing the order to
show cause was returned by the postal service with the notation “return to sender - not
deliverable as addressed - unable to forward.”
Petitioner has failed to comply with three court orders and he has not contacted this Court
since December 27, 2011. The Court has the authority to dismiss an action for failure to
prosecute and failure to comply with court orders under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and under its inherent authority to dismiss the action sua sponte. See generally Link v.
Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962); Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030 (5th Cir. 1998); McCullough
v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126 (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. 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 629-30.
The Court concludes that dismissal of this action for Petitioner’s failure to prosecute and
failure to comply with the Orders of the Court under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure is proper. See Rice v. Doe, No. 08-20381, 2009 WL 46882, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 8,
2009). Since the Respondents have not been called on to respond to the Petition, and the Court
has not considered the merits of Petitioner’s claims, the Court's Order of dismissal is without
2
prejudice. See Munday/Elkins Auto. Partners, LTD. v. Smith, 201 Fed. Appx. 265, 267 (5th Cir.
2006).
A Final Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered.
SO ORDERED, this the 30th day of April , 2012.
s/ Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?