Mason v. Lewis et al
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION dismissing action without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to comply with orders of this court. A final judgment will be entered in accordance with this opinion. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 8/2/12 (LWE)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION
RANDALL MARQUIS MASON, HCDC #87490
VERSUS
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-cv-275-TSL-MTP
SHERIFF TYRONE LEWIS, et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 23, 2012, the plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and requested in forma pauperis status.
This
court entered two separate orders [3 & 4] on April 23, 2012.
One
order [3] directed the plaintiff to sign and return an
Acknowledgment of Receipt and Certification (Form PSP-3) or a
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Form PSP-4), within thirty days.
The second order [4] entered on April 23, 2012, directed the
plaintiff to file a completed application to proceed in forma
pauperis, specifically the section entitled "Certificate to Be
Completed by Authorized Officer" of prison accounts or file an
affidavit specifically stating the name of the prison official
contacted concerning the Certificate and why this information is
not provided to this court, within thirty days.
Even though the
plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with any order of
this court could result in the dismissal of the instant civil
action, the plaintiff failed to comply with the orders [3 & 4].
Out of an abundance of caution, on June 19, 2012, the
plaintiff was ordered to show cause in writing on or before July
12, 2012, why this case should not be dismissed for his failure
to comply with the court's orders [3 & 4] of April 23, 2012. The
plaintiff was once again warned in the order of June 19, 2012,
that if he did not comply with the court orders his case could be
dismissed.
The order to show cause was mailed to the plaintiff’s last
known address.
On July 5, 2012, the envelope [6] containing the
June 19, 2012, order was returned by the postal service with a
notation "Return to Sender."
Since filing the instant complaint on April 23, 2012, the
plaintiff has failed to communicate with the court, either to
inquire as to the status of his case or to provide the court with
a current address.
Therefore, this court finds the plaintiff's
failure to communicate with this court indicates that he lacks
interest in pursuing this claim.
This court has the authority to dismiss an action for the
plaintiff's failure to prosecute 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 Railroad, 370 U.S. 626
(1962); 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.
Such a sanction is necessary
in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending
2
cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the court.
Link, supra, 370 U.S. at 630.
Since the defendants have never been called upon to respond
to the plaintiff's pleading, and have never appeared in this
action, and since the court has never considered the merits of
plaintiff's claims, the court's order of dismissal will be
without prejudice.
Shaw v. Estelle, 542 F.2d 954 (5th Cir.
1976).
A final judgment in accordance with this memorandum opinion
will be entered.
This the
2nd
day of August, 2012.
/s/Tom S. Lee
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?