United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Wallace Capel, Jr. Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Turner Day, an indigent inmate, initiated this 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action on October 26, 2018. In this civil action,
Day challenges conditions at the Elmore County Jail.
order of procedure entered on October 30, 2018 instructed Day
to immediately inform the court of any new address. Doc. 4 at
4, ¶8 (“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 Day received a copy of this order. However,
the postal service returned as undeliverable an order entered
on November 30, 2018 (Doc. 10) because Day no longer resided
at the last address he had provided to the court.
on the foregoing, the court entered an order requiring Day to
inform the court of his current address on or before January
7, 2019. Doc. 11 at 1. This order directed Day 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. 11 at 1. The
court “specifically cautioned [Day] that if he fails to
respond to this order the Magistrate Judge will recommend
that this case be dismissed.” Doc. 11 at 1. As of the
present date, Day 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 Day is an indigent individual and the imposition
of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be
ineffectual. Moreover, Day has failed to comply with the
directives of the orders entered by this court regarding
provision of a current address. It likewise appears that Day
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
Day's whereabouts are unknown.
the court concludes that Day'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 January 24, 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.