Mines v. Metro Moore County Jail et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM. A judgment will enter signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 1/23/12. (JGK, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at WINCHESTER
CHRISTOPHER D. MINES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
METRO MOORE COUNTY JAIL,
)
SHERIFF MARK LOGAN, TYLER RIDDLE,)
ROBERT MATHIS,
)
)
Defendant.
)

No. 4:12-CV-1
Mattice/Carter

MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Christopher D. Mines (“Mines”) filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Court Doc. 2). On January 11, 2012, an order was issued which was
returned to the Court stamped “Return to Sender” and “No longer here” (Court Doc. 4). The
Order included a warning that failure to notify the Court of any address change within ten
days following the change, would result in the dismissal of this action (Court Doc. 3).
A copy of an order was mailed to Mines at the Franklin County Jail on January 11,
2012, and returned to the Court on January 18, 2012, with a notation that Plaintiff was no
longer incarcerated at the Franklin County Jail and they were unable to forward the
envelope. Mines has not notified the Court of a current address; thus, the Court is unable
to mail an Order to him. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the involuntary
dismissal of a suit when a plaintiff fails to prosecute his case. The Court’s inability to
communicate with plaintiff and the Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor

1

of dismissal, as the Court cannot hold this case in abeyance indefinitely based on Mines’s
failure to notify the Court of his current address.
Plaintiff has given no indication that he intends 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 Mines due to his failure to keep the Court apprised of his current
address, no lesser sanction than dismissal is feasible.
Therefore, this action will be DISMISSED for Mines’s failure to prosecute and to
comply with the orders of this Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108
(6th Cir. 1991).
A judgment will enter.

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

2