Washington v. Noblin et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 7/19/2011 (SM)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ROOSEVELT WASHINGTON, #50085
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-cv-147-HTW-LRA
J.T. NOBLIN and CHARLES R. FULBRUGE, III
Plaintiff, an inmate of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, filed on March 14,
2011, a pro se Complaint and requested in forma pauperis status. On March 25, 2011, an
Order  was entered denying Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),1 commonly referred to as the "three-strikes" provision. The Order
directed Plaintiff to pay the full filing fee of $350.00, within thirty days. Plaintiff was
warned that failure to pay the filing fee within thirty days would result in the dismissal of his
case. Plaintiff failed to comply with this Order.
On May 12, 2011, an Order  was entered directing Plaintiff to show cause, on or
before May 27, 2011, why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the
Court's Order of March 25, 2011. In addition, Plaintiff was directed to comply with the
Order, by paying the filing fee, on or before May 27, 2011. The Show Cause Order 
“In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or
proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained
in any facility brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds
that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner
is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
warned Plaintiff that failure to timely comply with the requirements of the Order would lead
to the dismissal of his Complaint, without further notice. Plaintiff failed to comply with the
Show Cause Order.
Since Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he was provided one final opportunity to pay the
filing fee prior to the dismissal of his Complaint. On June 14, 2011, a Final Order to Show
Cause  was entered directing Plaintiff to show cause, on or before June 29, 2011, why this
case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court's Orders of March 25,
2011, and May 12, 2011. In addition, Plaintiff was directed to comply with the Order, by
paying the filing fee, on or before June 29, 2011. The Final Order to Show Cause  warned
Plaintiff that failure to timely comply with the requirements of the Order would lead to the
dismissal of his Complaint, without further notice. Plaintiff failed to comply with this Order.
Plaintiff has failed to comply with three Court orders and he has not contacted this
Court since March 14, 2011. This 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 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 Plaintiff’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)(affirming dismissal based on inmate's failure to comply with a court order). Since the
Defendants have not been called on to respond to Plaintiff's pleading, and the Court has not
considered the merits of Plaintiff's claims, the Court's order of dismissal is without prejudice.
See Munday/Elkins Auto. Partners, Ltd. v. Smith, 201 F. App’x 265, 267 (5th Cir. 2006).
A Final Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered.
SO ORDERED, this the 19th day of July, 2011.
s/ HENRY T. WINGATE
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?