Peterson v. Hinds County Sheriff's Department et al
ORDER dismissing action without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on December 30, 2016.(EH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ROBERT PETERSON, # 1400000927
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16cv714-DPJ-FKB
HINDS COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, VICTOR MASON, and
This matter is before the Court sua sponte for consideration of dismissal for failure to
prosecute and obey Court Orders. Pro se Plaintiff Robert Peterson is a pretrial detainee at the
Hinds County Detention Center in Jackson, Mississippi. Peterson initiated this action on
September 13, 2016.
The next day, the Court sent Peterson a notice of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, an
Acknowledgment of Receipt and Certification, and a form Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. The
Court ordered Peterson to sign and file either the Acknowledgment or Voluntary Dismissal.
Order . By separate Order , the Court also directed Peterson to either pay the $350 filing
and $50 administrative fees or to amend his application to proceed in forma pauperis. The
responses were due October 14, 2016.
Peterson failed to comply, and the Court entered an Order to Show Cause , on
November 2, 2016, ordering him to show cause, by November 16, 2016, why this case should
not be dismissed for failure to obey the Court’s Orders [3, 4].
Having received no response, the Court entered a Second Order to Show Cause  on
November 30, 2016. The Court gave Peterson one final chance to comply. All Orders were sent
to Peterson’s address of record, and none were returned as undeliverable. As of this date,
Peterson has not responded or otherwise contacted the Court.
The Court has repeatedly warned Peterson that failure to prosecute or comply with any
Court order may result in this case being dismissed. See Second Order to Show Cause  at 2;
Order to Show Cause  at 1–2; Order  at 1–2; Order  at 2. The Court has the authority to
dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and under the Court’s inherent authority to dismiss an
action sua sponte. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962). The Court must be
able to dismiss cases such as this that “remain[ ] dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness
of the parties seeking relief,” “in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending
cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Court.” Id. at 629–30. Because
Defendants have neither responded to the Complaint nor appeared in this action and the Court
has never considered the merits of the claims, this case is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, for the reasons stated above,
this case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A separate final judgment will be
entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 30th day of December, 2016.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
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?