Atwell et al v. Hamilton County Jail et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM. A judgment will enter signed by District Judge Curtis L Collier on 9/2/11. (JGK, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at CHATTANOOGA
MEL LINDSEY ATWELL, EDWARD
SHUMACKER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HAMILTON COUNTY JAIL, STATE OF
TENNESSEE, SHERIFF’S ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:11-cv-195
Chief Judge Curtis L. Collier

MEMORANDUM
Plaintiffs Mel Lindsey Atwell and Edward Shumacker (“Plaintiffs”) filed a pro se civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging their conditions of confinement (Court File No. 2). On
July 28, 2011, an Order directing Plaintiffs to sign the complaint and to either pay the $350.00 filing
fee or submit an in forma pauperis application along with a certified copy of their inmate trust
accounts within thirty days from the filing date of the order was mailed to Plaintiffs at the address
which they provided to the Court—the Hamilton County Jail. On August 19, 2011, the Order was
returned to the Court as undeliverable to the Plaintiffs, with the following notation: “Not in Custody
Aug. 4, 2011" (Court File No. 4).
Plaintiffs have not notified the Court of a current address; thus, preventing the Court from
communicating with Plaintiffs and preventing Plaintiffs from timely responding to the Court’s
Order. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the involuntary dismissal of a suit when a
plaintiff fails to prosecute his case. This authority is based on the Court’s inherent authority to
control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases. Roadway Exp., Inc.
v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 765 (1980) (“‘The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s

action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted. The power
to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending
cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.’”) (quoting Link v. Wabash R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962)). The Court’s inability to communicate with Plaintiffs and the
Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal, as the Court cannot hold this
case in abeyance indefinitely based on Plaintiffs’ failure to notify the Court of their current address.
Plaintiffs have given no indication that they intend to proceed with this action. Rule 41(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to
prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order. This authority is based
on the Court’s inherent authority to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition
of pending cases. Given the Court’s inability to communicate with Plaintiffs due to their failure to
keep the Court apprised of their current address, no lesser sanction than dismissal is feasible.
Therefore, this action will be DISMISSED for Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute and to comply
with the Orders of this Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108 (6th Cir.
1991).
A judgment will enter.

/s/
CURTIS L. COLLIER
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2