Wallace v. Crawford

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION and ORDER Dismissing without Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 5/15/18 (MGB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
ANDRE LYNEAL WALLACE, #27784-001
VERSUS

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-cv-781-TSL-RHW

MR. “UNKNOWN” CRAWFORD

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. After
consideration of the record and relevant legal authority, and
for the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that this civil
action should be dismissed without prejudice.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Andre Lyneal Wallace, an inmate housed at
the Federal Correctional Complex, Yazoo City, Mississippi,
initiated this action on September 25, 2017. On January 22,
2018, the Court entered an Order [8] directing Plaintiff to file
a response on or before February 13, 2018. That Order [8] warned
Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply with the
requirements of the Order or advise the Court of a change of
address may lead to the dismissal of the Complaint.

Id. at 2.

The Order [8] was mailed to Plaintiff at his last known address.
When Plaintiff failed to comply with the Order [8] entered
January 22, 2018, an Order to Show Cause [9] was entered on
February 28, 2018, requiring that on or before March 22, 2018,
Plaintiff:

(1) file a written response, showing cause why this

case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply
with the Court’s prior Order [8]; and (2) comply with the
Court’s prior Order [8] by filing the required response. Order
[9] at 1-2. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to timely
comply with this Order [9] or his failure to keep the Court
informed of his current address may result in the dismissal of
this case.

Id. at 2. Plaintiff did not comply.

Since Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he was provided one
final opportunity to comply with the Court’s Orders prior to the
dismissal of this case.

On April 5, 2018, a Second and Final

Order to Show Cause [10] was entered. That Order [10] required
that on or before April 27, 2018, Plaintiff: (1) file a written
response, showing cause why this case should not be dismissed
for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s previous
Orders [8, 9]; and (2) comply with the Court’s previous Orders
[8, 9] by filing the required response. Order [10] at 1-2.
Plaintiff was warned that his “failure to timely comply with any
order of the Court or failure to advise the Court of a change of
address will be deemed as a purposeful delay and contumacious
act by Plaintiff and will result in this cause being dismissed
without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff.”

Id.

at 2. Plaintiff did not respond to this Order [10] or otherwise
contact the Court about this case.
2

II. DISCUSSION
The Court has the authority to dismiss an action for
Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b), and under its inherent authority to dismiss the
action sua sponte.

See Link v. Wabash Railroad, 370 U.S. 626,

630-31 (1962); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th
Cir. 1988). The Court must be able to clear its calendar 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 630-31.

Plaintiff did not comply with multiple Orders after being
warned several times that failing to do so might result in the
dismissal of his lawsuit. Order [3] at 2; Order [4] at 2; Order
[6] at 2. Plaintiff has not contacted the Court since January 9,
2018. Such inaction represents a clear record of delay or
contumacious conduct by Plaintiff. It is apparent that Plaintiff
no longer wishes to pursue this lawsuit. As the record
demonstrates, lesser sanctions than dismissal have not prompted
“diligent prosecution” but instead such efforts have proven
3

futile.

See Tello v. Comm=r., 410 F.3d 743, 744 (5th Cir. 2005).

Dismissal without prejudice is warranted.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, this civil action will be
dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this civil
action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to obey the
Court’s Orders and to prosecute. A separate final judgment will
be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED, this the 15th day of May, 2018.
/s/Tom S. Lee
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4