Prather v. GEO Group et al

Filing 16

Memorandum Opinion and Order Dismissing Case. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 04/26/2012. (AC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
ROGER DALE PRATHER, #159991
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11-cv-199-CWR-FKB

GEO GROUP, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, an inmate of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, filed a pro se Complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 4, 2012, an Order [ECF No. 8] was entered directing
Plaintiff to file a written response to provide specific information regarding his claims, on or before
January 25, 2012. Plaintiff was warned that his failure to keep this Court informed of his current
address or his failure to timely comply with any Order of this Court may result in the dismissal of
this case. Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Order.
On February 22, 2012, an Order [ECF No. 9] was entered directing the Plaintiff to show cause,
on or before March 8, 2012, why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the
Court’s January 4, 2012 Order. In addition, Plaintiff was directed to comply with the Court’s Order
by filing his response, on or before March 8, 2012. The Show Cause Order warned Plaintiff that
failure to timely comply with the requirements of the Order would lead to the dismissal of his
Complaint, without further notice. Although Plaintiff filed discovery requests, he did not comply
with the Order for more information or the Show Cause Order.
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 March 26, 2012, a Final Order to
Show Cause [ECF No. 14] was entered in this case. Plaintiff was directed to show cause, on or

before April 10, 2012, why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the
Court's Orders of January 4, 2012, and February 22, 2012. In addition, Plaintiff was directed to
comply with the previous Orders by filing his response, on or before April 10, 2012. The Final
Order to Show Cause warned Plaintiff that failure to keep this Court informed of his current address
or failure to timely comply with the requirements of the Order would lead to the dismissal of his
Complaint, without further notice. On April 9, 2012, the envelope [ECF No. 15] containing the
Final Order to Show Cause was returned by the postal service with the notation “return to sender not deliverable as addressed - unable to forward.” Plaintiff has not complied with the Final Order
to Show Cause.
Plaintiff has failed to comply with three Court orders and he has not contacted this Court since
March 1, 2012. 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 generally, 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.
The Court concludes that dismissal of this action for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure
to comply with the orders of the Court under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is
proper. See Rice v. Doe, No. 08-20381, 2009 WL 46882, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 8, 2009) (affirming
2

dismissal based on inmate's failure to comply with a court order). Since the Defendants have not
been called on to respond to Plaintiff's pleading, and the Court has not considered the merits of
Plaintiff’s claims, the Court’s order of dismissal is 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, this the 26th day of April, 2012.

s/ Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3