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.

Majeed v. Gartland

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

July 11, 2017

DAWUDA ABDUL MAJEED, Petitioner,
v.
PATRICK GARTLAND, Respondent.

          ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          R. STAN BAKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner Dawuda Abdul Majeed's (“Majeed”) failure to comply with the Court's Order of June 15, 2017, (doc. 2), and his failure to prosecute this action. For the following reasons, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Majeed's action without prejudice for failure to follow the Court's directive and failure to prosecute.[1] I further RECOMMEND that the Court DENY Majeed leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

         BACKGROUND

         On May 30, 2017, Majeed, a detainee previously housed at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Facility, in Folkston, Georgia filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) The Court directed service on June 15, 2017, and ordered Majeed to “immediately inform this Court in writing of any change of address. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this case, without prejudice.” (Doc. 2, p. 2.) However, on June 22, 2017, the Court's Order was returned as undeliverable because Majeed was released from the ICE Facility. (Doc. 4.) Majeed has not made any filing in this case since filing his Petition on May 30, 2017, (doc. 1), and has not notified the Court of any change of his address.

         DISCUSSION

         The Court must now determine how to address Majeed's failure to comply with this Court's Order and failure to prosecute this action. For the reasons set forth below, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Majeed's Petition and DENY him leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

         I. Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute and Follow this Court's Orders

         A district court may dismiss a petitioner's claims for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (“Rule 41(b)”) and the court's inherent authority to manage its docket. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962);[2] 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 petitioner'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, where plaintiff did not respond to court order to supply defendant's current address for purpose of service); Brown, 205 F.App'x at 802-03 (upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute, where plaintiff failed to follow court order to file amended complaint and court had informed plaintiff that noncompliance could lead to dismissal). With Majeed having failed to update the Court with his current address, the Court has no means by which it can communicate with him. Thus, the Court is unable to move forward with this case. Furthermore, Majeed has failed to diligently prosecute his claims-he has not taken any action in this case since filing his Petition.

         Thus, the Court should DISMISS Majeed's Section 2241 Petition, (doc. 1), without prejudice, and DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case for failure to prosecute and failure to follow this Court's Order.

         II. Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis

         The Court should also deny Majeed leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Though Majeed has, of course, not yet filed a notice of appeal, it would be appropriate to address that issue in the Court's order of dismissal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3) (trial court may certify that appeal is not taken in good faith “before or after the notice of appeal is filed”).

         An appeal cannot be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies, either before or after the notice of appeal is filed, that the appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Good faith in this context must be judged by an objective standard. Busch v. Cty. of Volusia, 189 F.R.D. 687, 691 (M.D. Fla. 1999). A party does not proceed in good faith when he seeks to advance a frivolous claim or argument. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). A claim or argument is frivolous when it appears the factual allegations are clearly baseless or the legal theories are indisputably meritless. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). Or, stated another way, an in forma pauperis action is frivolous and, thus, not brought in good faith, if it is ...


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.