United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
BILLY W. TRILLET, #137853, Plaintiff,
DR. HERRING, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDE
RUSS WALKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a
complaint filed by Billy W. Trillet challenging medical
treatment provided to him during a prior term of
incarceration at the Staton Correctional Facility. The order
of procedure entered on May 20, 2016 instructed Trillet to
inform the court immediately of any new address. Doc. 8 at 5,
¶7(h) (“If plaintiff moves to a different
institution or is released, he must immediately inform the
court and the defendants of his new address.”). The
docket indicates that Trillet received a copy of this order
and provided the court with a change of address as required
by the order. See Doc. 35. However, the court
recently obtained information that Trillet is no longer at
the last address he provided to the court.
on the foregoing, the court entered an order requiring
Trillet to inform the court of his current address on or
before October 1, 2018. Doc. 41 at 1. The order also
“specifically cautioned [Trillet] that if he fails to
respond to this order the Magistrate Judge will recommend
that this case be dismissed due to his failure to keep the
court apprised of his current address and because, in the
absence of such, this case cannot proceed before this court
in an appropriate manner.” Doc. 41 at 1-2. As of the
present date, Trillet has failed to provide the court with
his current address pursuant to the orders entered in this
case. Under these circumstances, the court finds that
dismissal of this case is warranted.
accordance with Eleventh Circuit 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 such review, the court finds
that dismissal of this case is the proper course of action.
Initially, the court notes that Trillet is an indigent
individual and the imposition of monetary or other punitive
sanctions against him would be ineffectual. Moreover, Trillet
has failed to comply with the orders entered by this court
regarding provision of a current address. It likewise appears
that Trillet 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 Trillet's
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 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 October 24, 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).
The last address Trillet submitted to
the court is the Loxley Work Release Center. A search of the
inmate database maintained by the Alabama Department of
indicates that Trillet is no ...