Allen v. E.M.C.F. (Medical) et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION dismissing this action without prejudice for Plaintiffs failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the orders of the Court under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A Final Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 5/10/2013. (JS)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
BOBBY RAY ALLEN, #L4516
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13-cv-1-CWR-LRA
UNKNOWN NURSE, 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 30, 2013, an Order [ECF No. 6] was entered directing
Plaintiff to file a written response to provide specific information regarding his claims, on or before
February 20, 2013. 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 failed to comply with this Order.
On March 7, 2013, an Order [ECF No. 7] was entered directing the Plaintiff to show cause,
on or before March 22, 2013, why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with
the Court’s January 30, 2013 Order. In addition, Plaintiff was directed to comply with the Court’s
Order by filing his response, on or before March 22, 2013. The Show Cause Order 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.
Plaintiff failed to comply with this Order.
Since Plaintiff is incarcerated and 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 April 8, 2013,
a Final Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 8] was entered in this case. Plaintiff was directed to show
cause, on or before April 23, 2013, why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply
with the Court’s Orders of January 30, 2013, and March 7, 2013. In addition, Plaintiff was directed
to comply with the previous Orders by filing his response, on or before April 23, 2013. 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. Plaintiff has not complied with the Final Order to Show Cause.
Plaintiff has not contacted the Court about this case since January 29, 2013. 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.
Plaintiff has failed to comply with three court orders. As the record demonstrates, lesser
sanctions than dismissal have not prompted “diligent prosecution” but instead such efforts have
proven futile. See Tello v. Comm’r., 410 F.3d 743, 744 (5th Cir. 2005). Therefore, 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 dismissal based on
inmate’s failure to comply with a court order). Since the Defendants have not been called on to
2
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.
This the 10th day of May, 2013.
s/Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?