Plummer v. G.E.O. et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 8/25/2011 (SM)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHNNY LAROND PLUMMER, #41080
VERSUS
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11-cv-35-HTW-LRA
G.E.O., et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On March 3, 2011, the plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and requested
in forma pauperis status. This Court entered on March 14, 2011, an order [3] denying the plaintiff's
motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The order [3] further directed
the plaintiff to pay the $350.00 filing fee within 30 days from the date of the order. Plaintiff was
warned that failure to comply with an order of this Court or failure to notify this Court of a change
of address could result in the dismissal of the instant civil action. Notwithstanding the warning
issued, the plaintiff failed to respond or comply with that order [3].
When the plaintiff failed to comply with the order [3] entered on March 14, 2011, an order to
show cause [6] was entered on May 11, 2011, requiring the plaintiff to file a response in writing on
or before May 26, 2011, why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the
Court's order [3] entered on March 14, 2011. Even though the plaintiff was once again warned in
the order [6] of May 11, 2011, that if he did not comply with the Court order his case would be
dismissed without further notice to him, he failed to comply with the order to show cause [6].
However, out of an abundance of caution, this Court entered a second order to show cause [7]
on June 20, 2011. The plaintiff was ordered to file a written response on or before July 6, 2011,
showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court's
orders [3 & 6]. The order [7] further stated that this was the plaintiff's final opportunity to comply
with the orders [3 & 6] of this Court. Once again, the plaintiff was warned in the order [7] of June
20, 2011, that his failure to comply with the Court's order in a timely manner would result in the
instant civil action being dismissed without further notice to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has failed to comply with the orders [3, 6 & 7] of this Court. Consequently, this
Court finds it apparent from the plaintiff's failure to comply or otherwise communicate with this
Court that he lacks interest in pursuing this claim.
This Court has the authority to dismiss an action for the plaintiff's failure to prosecute 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 Railroad, 370 U.S. 626 (1962); 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. 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.
Since the defendants have never been called upon to respond to the plaintiff's pleading, and
have never appeared in this action, and since the Court has never considered the merits of plaintiff's
claims, the Court's order of dismissal will be without prejudice. Shaw v. Estelle, 542 F.2d 954 (5th
Cir. 1976).
A final judgment in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order will be entered.
This the 25th day of August, 2011.
s/ HENRY T. WINGATE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Memorandum Opinion and Order
4:11-cv-35-HTW-LRA
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?