United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WALLACE CAPEL, JR.CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Reese, an indigent inmate, initiated this 42 U.S.C. §
1983 civil rights action on March 26, 2018. In the complaint,
Reese challenges fees assessed for medical treatment, legal
kits and toilet paper during a recent term of confinement in
the Houston County Jail.
order of procedure entered on March 28, 2018 instructed Reese
to immediately inform the court of any new address. Doc. 4 at
4, ¶7 (“The plaintiff shall immediately inform the
court and the defendant or, if counsel has appeared on behalf
of the defendant, counsel of record of any change in his
address. Failure to provide a correct address to this court
within ten (10) days following any change of address will
result in the dismissal of this action.”). The docket
indicates Reese received a copy of this order. However, the
postal service returned as undeliverable an order entered on
May 8, 2018 (Doc. 12) because Reese no longer resided at the
last address he had provided to the court.
on the foregoing, the court entered an order requiring Reese
to inform the court of his current address on or before May
29, 2018. Doc. 13 at 1. This order directed Reese to
“show cause why this case should not be dismissed for
his failure to comply with the orders of this court and his
failure to adequately prosecute this action.” Doc. 13
at 1. The court “specifically cautioned [Reese] that if
he fails to respond to this order the Magistrate Judge will
recommend that this case be dismissed.” Doc. 13 at 2.
As of the present date, Reese has failed to provide the court
with his current address pursuant to the directives of the
orders entered in this case. The court therefore concludes
that this case should be dismissed.
court has reviewed the file to determine whether a less
drastic measure than dismissal is appropriate. See
Abreu-Velez v. Board of Regents of Univ. System of
Georgia, 248 Fed.Appx. 116, 117-18 (11th Cir. 2007).
After such review, the court finds that dismissal of this
case is the proper course of action. Initially, the court
notes that Reese is an indigent individual and the imposition
of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be
ineffectual. Moreover, Reese has failed to comply with the
directives of the orders entered by this court regarding
provision of a current address. It likewise appears that
Reese is simply no longer interested in the prosecution of
this case and any additional effort to secure his compliance
would be unavailing and a waste of this court's scarce
resources. Finally, this case cannot properly proceed when
Reese's whereabouts are unknown.
the court concludes that Reese's failure to comply with
the orders of this court warrant dismissal of this case.
Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)
(holding that, as a general rule, where a litigant has been
forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is
not an abuse of discretion.). The authority of courts to
impose sanctions for failure to prosecute or obey an order is
longstanding and acknowledged by Rule 41(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash R.R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962). “The district
court possesses the inherent power to police its
docket.” Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op of
Fla., 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989). This authority
empowers the courts “to manage their own affairs so as
to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases.” Link, 370 U.S. at 630-31. “The
sanctions imposed [upon dilatory litigants] can range from a
simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with or
without prejudice.” Mingo, 864 F.2d at 102.
above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the
Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without
before June 15, 2018 the parties may file
objections to the Recommendation. A party must specifically
identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the
Recommendation to which the objection is made. Frivolous,
conclusive, or general objections to the Recommendation will
not be considered.
to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge's
findings and recommendations in accordance with the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party
from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal
and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives
the right of the party to challenge on appeal the District
Court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal
conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except
upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. 11TH Cir.
R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders,
Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley
v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).
At the time Reese filed the complaint,
he was incarcerated at the Houston County Jail. This is the
last address he ...