United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WALLACE CAPEL, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Toles, Sr., an indigent inmate, initiated this 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action on November 14, 2018 while confined in the
Dale County Jail. In this complaint, Toles challenges the
constitutionality of actions which occurred on November 5,
2018 during his confinement in the jail. Doc. 1 at 2-3. Upon
initiation of this case, the court entered an order or
procedure requiring the defendants to file a response to the
complaint. Doc. 4. This order also instructed Toles that he
must immediately inform the court and defendants of any new
address. Doc. 4 at 4, ¶8. Toles was specifically
cautioned that “[f]ailure 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.”
Doc. 4 at 4, ¶8. The docket indicates that Toles
received a copy of the order.
separate case filed by Toles with this court, Toles v.
Olson, et al., Civil Action No. 1:18-CV-889-WKW-WC (M.D.
Ala.), the court issued an order on November 30, 2018 (Doc.
10), a copy of which the Clerk mailed to Toles. The postal
service returned this document because Toles no longer
resides at the Dale County Jail - the last address he had
provided for service. It is clear from the foregoing that
Toles has failed to comply with the requirement that he keep
the court informed of his current address and, as such, the
instant case cannot properly proceed in this court if his
whereabouts remain unknown.
on the foregoing, the court entered an order noting
Toles' failure to furnish the court with his current
address and requiring “that on or before December 17,
2018 Plaintiff shall 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. 8 at 1. The court “specifically
cautioned Plaintiff that if he fails to respond to this order
the Magistrate Judge will recommend that this case be
dismissed.” Doc. 8 at 1-2. As of the present date,
Toles 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 Toles is an indigent individual and the imposition
of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be
ineffectual. Moreover, Toles has failed to comply with the
directives of the orders entered by this court regarding
provision of a current address. It likewise appears that
Toles 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
Toles fails to advise the court of his whereabouts.
the court concludes that Toles' 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 January 2, 2019 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.