Brown v. Lewis
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION dismissing this action, without prejudice, for Plaintiff failure to prosecute and for 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 5/14/2014. (JS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
JOSHUA BROWN, #98293
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-cv-26-CWR-LRA
TYRONE LEWIS
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This cause is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Plaintiff, an inmate
at the Hinds County Detention Center, filed this pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On
January 14, 2014, two Orders were entered in this action. One Order directed the Plaintiff to
complete, 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 directed the
Plaintiff to pay the required filing fee or file a completed in forma pauperis application within thirty
days. Plaintiff failed to comply with both of these Orders. The Plaintiff was warned in these Orders
that failure to timely comply with the requirements of the Orders may lead to the dismissal of his
Complaint.
On March 17, 2014, the Court entered an Order [6] directing the Plaintiff to show cause why
this case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the January 14, 2014 Orders. In
addition, Plaintiff was directed to file his response and comply with the Orders by filing the required
documents, on or before April 1, 2014. Although the Plaintiff was warned in the Show Cause Order
that failure to timely comply with the requirements of the Orders would lead to the dismissal of his
Complaint, he failed to comply with the Orders.
Since Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he was
provided one final opportunity to comply with the Court’s Orders prior to the summary dismissal
of this case. On April 14, 2014, the Court entered a Final Order to Show Cause [7]. Plaintiff
was directed to show cause, on or before April 28, 2014, why this case should not be dismissed
for his failure to comply with the prior Orders. In addition, Plaintiff was directed to comply with
the previous Orders by filing the required documents on or before April 28, 2014. Consistent
with the prior Orders, the Final Order to Show Cause [7] 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 has not complied with the Final Order to Show Cause [7].
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.
Plaintiff has failed to comply with four Court Orders [4, 5, 6, 7], and he has not contacted
the Court since the filing of this case on January 14, 2014. 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 is proper for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and for failure
2
to comply with the Orders of the Court under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
See Rice v. Doe, 306 F. App’x 144, 146 (5th Cir. 2009) (affirming dismissal based on inmate’s
failure to comply with a court order). Since the Defendant has not been called on to respond to
Plaintiff’s pleading, and the Court has not considered the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, this case
will be dismissed 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 AND ADJUDGED, this the 14th day of May, 2014.
s/Carlton W. Reeves
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?