Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Masi v. Glynn County Detention Center

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division

February 8, 2017

JAMES MASI, Plaintiff,
v.
GLYNN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Defendant.

          ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          R. STAN BAKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order of January 12, 2017, to amend his Complaint. (Doc. 3.) For the following reasons, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint, (doc. 1), without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to follow this Court's Orders and failure to state a claim. I further RECOMMEND that the Court DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff, an inmate at the Glynn County Detention Center in Brunswick, Georgia, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 6, 2017. (Doc. 1.) On January 12, 2017, the Court deferred ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 3.) In that Order, the Court explained that “a county jail is not a viable defendant under Section 1983” and that “Plaintiff's Complaint in its current form fails to state a viable claim, as the only named Defendant is the Glynn County Detention Center.” (Id. at p. 3.) The Court instructed Plaintiff to amend his Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of that Order. (Id. at p. 1.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's amendment was due on or before January 26, 2017. However, Plaintiff has not submitted an amended complaint. Instead, Plaintiff has submitted letters to the Court in which he requests paper, envelopes, and shampoo, and letters in which he reiterates his claims against Glynn County Detention Center, (docs. 4, 5, 10). Plaintiff has also filed copies of his inmate request forms, (docs. 7-10).

         DISCUSSION

         The Court must now determine how to address Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Court's directive. For the reasons set forth below, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint and DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

         I. Dismissal for Failure to Follow this Court's Order and Failure to State a Claim

         A district court may dismiss a plaintiff's claims sua sponte pursuant to either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (“Rule 41(b)”) or the court's inherent authority to manage its docket. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962);[1] Coleman v. St. Lucie Cty. Jail, 433 F. App'x 716, 718 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)). In particular, Rule 41(b) allows for the involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff's claims where he has failed to prosecute those claims, comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or local rules, or follow a court order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); see also Coleman, 433 F. App'x at 718; Sanders v. Barrett, No. 05-12660, 2005 WL 2640979, at *1 (11th Cir. Oct. 17, 2005) (citing Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 192 (11th Cir. 1993)); cf. Local R. 41.1(b) (“[T]he assigned Judge may, after notice to counsel of record, sua sponte . . . dismiss any action for want of prosecution, with or without prejudice[, ] . . . [based on] willful disobedience or neglect of any order of the Court.” (emphasis omitted)). Additionally, a district court's “power to dismiss is an inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders and ensure prompt disposition of lawsuits.” Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep't, 205 F. App'x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983)).

         It is true that dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute is a “sanction . . . to be utilized only in extreme situations” and requires that a court “(1) conclud[e] a clear record of delay or willful contempt exists; and (2) mak[e] an implicit or explicit finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice.” Thomas v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Educ., 170 F. App'x 623, 625-26 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Morewitz v. West of Eng. Ship Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass'n (Lux.), 62 F.3d 1356, 1366 (11th Cir. 1995)); see also Taylor v. Spaziano, 251 F. App'x 616, 619 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Morewitz, 62 F.3d at 1366). By contrast, dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute is not an adjudication on the merits, and, therefore, courts are afforded greater discretion in dismissing claims in this manner. Taylor, 251 F. App'x at 619; see also Coleman, 433 F. App'x at 719; Brown, 205 F. App'x at 802-03.

         While the Court exercises its discretion to dismiss cases with caution, dismissal of this action without prejudice is warranted. See Coleman, 433 F. App'x at 719 (upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute Section 1983 complaint, where plaintiff did not respond to court order to supply defendant's current address for purpose of service); Taylor, 251 F. App'x at 620-21 (upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute, because plaintiffs insisted on going forward with deficient amended complaint rather than complying, or seeking an extension of time to comply, with court's order to file second amended complaint); Brown, 205 F. App'x at 802-03 (upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute Section 1983 claims, where plaintiff failed to follow court order to file amended complaint and court had informed plaintiff that noncompliance could lead to dismissal). By choosing to file six non-responsive pleadings instead of an amended complaint, Plaintiff has demonstrated a clear record of delay and disregard for this Court's Orders, and a sanction other than dismissal would not suffice to remedy his deficiencies.

         Additionally, as laid out in the Court's prior Orders, the Glynn County Detention Center is not a viable Defendant. Plaintiff has not named any persons or other proper parties as defendants. Thus, he has failed to state a claim upon which this Court could grant relief.

         Thus, the Court should DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint, (doc. 1), without prejudice, for failure to follow this Court's Order and failure to state a claim and DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case.

         II. Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis

         The Court should also deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Though Plaintiff has, of course, not yet filed a notice of appeal, it is proper to address these issues in the Court's order of dismissal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3) (trial court may certify that appeal of party proceeding in forma pauperis ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.