Patterson v. Hall et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION dismissing this action for Plaintiffs failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Orders of the Court under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A Final Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 10/7/2013. (JS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION
RODRICK JOHNSON PATTERSON, #38717

PLAINTIFF

also known as Ricky Johnson; Rodrick Earl Johnson;
Rodrick Johnson; and Rodrick Patterson

VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-cv-338-CWR-FKB

JACINTA HALL, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff filed this pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 18, 2013, this
Court entered an Order [ECF No. 4] advising the Plaintiff of the consequences of filing this action
under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The Order directed the Plaintiff to file either a notice of
voluntary dismissal or a written response stating that he wishes to continue with this case, within
thirty days. The Plaintiff was warned that his failure to keep the Court informed of his current
address or his failure to timely comply with the requirements of the Order may result in the dismissal
of this case. On July 16, 2013, the envelope [ECF No. 6] containing the June 18th Order was
returned by the postal service with the notation “return to sender - not deliverable as addressed unable to forward.” The Plaintiff failed to comply with the Order [ECF No. 4] of June 18, 2013.

On August 5, 2013, an Order [ECF No. 7] was entered directing the Plaintiff to show cause,
on or before August 20, 2013, why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with
the Court’s June 18, 2013 Order. In addition, Plaintiff was directed to comply with the Order by
filing a notice of voluntary dismissal or a written response stating that he wishes to continue with
this case, on or before August 20, 2013. The Show Cause Order warned Plaintiff that failure to keep

the Court informed of his current address or his failure to timely comply with the requirements of
the Order would lead to the dismissal of his Complaint, without further notice. On August 14, 2013,
the envelope [ECF No. 8] containing the Show Cause Order was returned by the postal service with
the notation “return to sender - not deliverable as addressed - unable to forward.” Plaintiff did not
comply with the Show Cause Order.
Since Plaintiff is incarcerated and proceeding pro se, he was provided one final opportunity
to comply with the Court’s Orders prior to the dismissal of this case. On September 4, 2013, the
Court entered a Final Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 9] directing Plaintiff to show cause why this
case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the Orders of June 18, 2013, and August
5, 2013. In addition, Plaintiff was directed to comply with the previous Orders, on or before
September 19, 2013. The Final Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 9] also warned Plaintiff that his
failure to timely comply with the Order or his failure to keep this Court informed of his current
address would result in the dismissal of this case without further written notice to the Plaintiff. On
September 16, 2013, the envelope [ECF No. 10-1] containing the Final Show Cause Order was
returned by the Hinds County Detention Center with the notation “subject moved and did not leave
a forwarding address.” Plaintiff did not comply with the Final Show Cause Order.
Plaintiff has not contacted the Court about this case since he filed the action on June 4, 2013.
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 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
2

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.
Plaintiff has failed to comply with three Court Orders and he has failed to keep the Court
informed of his current address. As the record demonstrates, lesser sanctions than dismissal have
not prompted “diligent prosecution” but instead such efforts have proven futile. See Tello v.
Comm’r., 410 F.3d 743, 744 (5th Cir. 2005). Therefore, 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 of prisoner’s case for failure to comply
with court orders). 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 7th day of October, 2013.
s/Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3