Williams v. Sexton et al

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 6/20/2016. (BDG, ) Modified on 6/20/2016 (BDG, ). Mailed to Williams.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
DANIEL WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMANDA HEADRICK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.: 3:14-CV-062-HSM-CCS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a pro se prisoner’s complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 15,
2016, the Court entered an order that required Plaintiff to show cause within fifteen days of entry
as to why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s orders and
for want of prosecution [Doc. 40]. The mail sent to Plaintiff with that show cause order was
returned as undeliverable [Doc. 41] and Plaintiff has not responded to the order or otherwise
communicated with the Court. It is therefore clear that Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court
with notice of his correct address and, without his correct and current address, neither the Court
nor Defendants can communicate with him regarding his case. The Court previously ordered
Plaintiff to inform the Court and Defendants or their counsel of record of any address changes
immediately and also warned Plaintiff that failure to provide a correct address within ten days
may result in the dismissal of this action [Doc. 5 p. 4].
Accordingly, Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss [Docs. 38 and 39] will be
GRANTED this action will be DISMISSED for failure to comply with orders of the Court and
for want of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31
(1962) (recognizing court’s authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of prosecution); White

v. City of Grand Rapids, No. 01-229234, 34 F. App’x 210, 211, 2002 WL 926998, at *1 (6th Cir.
May 7, 2002) (finding that pro se prisoner’s complaint “was subject to dismissal for want of
prosecution because he failed to keep the district court apprised of his current address”); Jourdan
v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108 (6th Cir. 1991).
The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith
and would be totally frivolous. See Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT ORDER WILL ENTER.
ENTER:

/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._______
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE