Carroll v. Reese et al

Filing 48

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendants' 47 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution; Complaint is dismissed and Final Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants. Copy of this Opinion mailed to Plaintiff at 161 CR 809, Ripley, Mississippi 38663. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 5/6/2013. (ACF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
WILEY ZACHARY CARROLL
VS.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:10CV129-LRA

BART GRIMES, ET AL

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants
Bart Grimes, Warden Reagan, Lt. Thrift, and Major Brett Mize [47] on April 22, 2013.
Plaintiff Wiley Zachary Carroll was released from prison sometime in June 2012. This
Court ordered him to file a written report on or before April 5, 2013, advising the Court
as to whether he wished to proceed in this litigation and, if so, to provide his witness list
by that date. He was warned that his failure to comply with the Order would result in the
dismissal of his case without further notice. The Order [46] was sent to the last address
given to the Court, 161 CR 809, Ripley, Mississippi 38663, and it was not returned as
undeliverable. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Court’s directives, and the Court
must assume that Plaintiff received the Order and does not wish to proceed with this
lawsuit.
Defendants point out in their motion that Carroll was warned when he filed this
lawsuit that any changes of address must be provided to the Court [3]. They also note
that another Complaint filed by Carroll in this Court was dismissed due to his failure to
prosecute that case after being released from prison. See Carroll v. Major Brett Mize, et
al, 4:11cv69-CWR-FKB.

This Court has the authority to dismiss an action for failure of a Plaintiff to
prosecute or to comply with any order of the Court both under FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) and
under its inherent authority. See McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126 (5th Cir. 1988);
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-631 (1962). 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 cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the court. Link, supra, 370 U.S.
at 630. The actions of Plaintiff also prejudice the rights of Defendants to fully defend the
claims made against them.
Many of Carroll’s claims against these Defendants may be moot after his release
from MDOC custody. It is understandable that he may not wish to go forward with his
claims since he is no longer incarcerated. Further, his failure to respond to the Court’s
last Order confirms that he has lost interest in proceeding in the prosecution of his claims;
otherwise, he would have contacted the Court after his release. Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss [47] shall be granted and his Carroll’s case shall be dismissed.

2

For these reasons,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted,
and the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Carroll is dismissed pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.
41(b).
SO ORDERED, this the 6th day of May 2013.

___s/ Linda R. Anderson________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3