United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
STEPHEN M. DOYLE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
This 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the Court on a
Complaint (Doc. 1) filed by Dedric Jamar Dean
(“Dean”), an indigent state inmate, in which he
challenges the constitutionality of conditions of confinement
to which he was subjected at the Ventress Correctional
Facility (“Ventress”) in April of 2017. The Court
recently obtained information indicating that Dean is no
longer at the last address he had provided for
service.[1] The order of procedure entered in this
case ordered Plaintiff to “immediately inform the court
and the defendants . . . 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.” (Doc. 4) at 4. The docket
maintained in this case indicates that Plaintiff received a
copy of this order as he provided a notice of change of
address to the Court on August 24, 2017. (Doc. 17).
Based
on the foregoing, the undersigned entered an Order requiring
Dean to inform the Court of his current address on or before
June 28, 2019. (Doc. 35) at 1-2. This Order directed Dean 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.”
Id. The Court “specifically cautioned [Dean]
that if he fails to respond to this order the Magistrate
Judge will recommend that this case be dismissed for his
failure to comply with the orders of this court and his
failure to adequately prosecute this action.”
Id. As of the present date, Dean has failed to
provide the Court with his current address pursuant to the
directives of the orders entered in this case. The
undersigned, therefore, recommends that this case is due to
be dismissed.
The
undersigned has reviewed the file to determine whether a less
drastic measure than dismissal is appropriate. See
Abreu-Velez v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 248
Fed.Appx. 116, 117-18 (11th Cir. 2007). After such review,
the undersigned finds that dismissal of this case is the
proper course of action. Initially, the undersigned notes
that Dean is an indigent individual and the imposition of
monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be
ineffectual. Moreover, Dean has failed to comply with the
directives of the orders entered by this Court regarding
provision of a current address. It likewise appears that Dean
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
Dean's whereabouts are unknown to the Court.
Accordingly,
the undersigned concludes that Dean'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). This authority
empowers the courts “to manage their own affairs so as
to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases.” Id. at 630-31; Mingo v. Sugar Cane
Growers Co-Op of Fla., 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir.
1989) (holding that a “district court possesses the
inherent power to police its docket.”). “The
sanctions imposed [upon dilatory litigants] can range from a
simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with or
without prejudice.” Id.
For the
above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the
Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without
prejudice. It is further
ORDERED
that, on or before August 26, 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. Failure 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).
---------
Notes:
[1] The last address provided to the Court
by Plaintiff is Limestone Correctional Facility. A recent
search of the inmate database maintained by the Alabama
Department of Corrections,
http://doc.state.al.us/InmateSearch, indicates that
Dean is not ...