United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division
JACKY ALLEN ROGERS, JR., #312579, a.k.a., Jackie Allen Rogers, a.ka., Syko Rogers, Plaintiff,
HOUSTON COUNTY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
WALLACE CAPEL, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Allen Rogers, Jr., an indigent inmate, initiated this 42
U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action on May 16, 2018. In
the instant complaint, Rogers challenges conditions during
his confinement in the Houston County Community Corrections
Program. Doc. 1 at 4-6.
order of procedure entered on May 17, 2018 instructed Rogers
to immediately inform the court of any new address. Doc. 4 at
4, ¶7. (“The plaintiff shall immediately inform
the court and the defendants or, if counsel has appeared on
behalf of the defendants, 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 Rogers received a copy of this order.
However, the postal service returned as undeliverable an
order entered on June 26, 2018 because Rogers no longer
resided at the last address he provided to the court.
on the foregoing, the court entered an order requiring Rogers
to inform the court of his current address on or before July
16, 2018. Doc. 12 at 1. The order noted “this case
cannot properly proceed . . . if [the plaintiff's]
whereabouts remain unknown . . . [and directed the plaintiff
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. 12
at 1. Finally, the court “specifically cautioned [the
plaintiff] that if he fails to respond to this order the
Magistrate Judge will recommend that this case be
dismissed.” Doc. 12 at 1-2. As of the present date,
Rogers has failed to provide the court with his current
address. Under these circumstances, the court finds that
dismissal of this case is warranted.
accordance with applicable case law, the 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 this review, the court finds
that dismissal of this case is the proper course of action.
Initially, the court notes that Rogers is an indigent
individual and the imposition of monetary or other punitive
sanctions against him would be ineffectual. Moreover, Rogers
has failed to comply with the directives of the orders
entered by this court regarding provision of a current
address. It likewise appears that Rogers 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, as
previously stated, this case cannot properly proceed when
Rogers' whereabouts are unknown.
the court concludes that this case is due to be dismissed.
See 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 co urts “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 August 8, 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.