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.

Clervrain v. Jones

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

February 4, 2019

MANETIRONY CLERVRAIN, Plaintiff,
v.
TRACEY JONES, Defendant.

          ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          BENJAMIN W. CHEESBRO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Court's December 6, 2018 Order to amend his Complaint. Doc. 9. For the following reasons, I RECOMMEND the Court DISMISS the Complaint, doc. 1, without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to follow this Court's Orders and failure to prosecute and DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and ENTER the appropriate judgment of dismissal. I further RECOMMEND the Court DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

         BACKGROUND

         On April 27, 2018, Plaintiff, while incarcerated at the D. Ray James Correctional Facility in Folkston, Georgia, filed this action to challenge the conditions of his confinement. Doc. 1. Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis the same day. Doc. 2. On April 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and on July 9, 2018, he filed a third motion to proceed in forma pauperis along with an inmate account statement. Docs. 4, 5, 6, 7.

         On December 6, 2018, this Court deferred ruling on Plaintiff's first motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the duplicative motions as moot. Doc. 9. Observing that Plaintiff's “initial filing appears to be a discovery motion but has been construed and docketed as a Complaint, ” the Court ordered Plaintiff to amend his Complaint within 14 days of the Order and provided Plaintiff with additional instructions for doing so. Id. at 4-5. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that “failure to file an appropriate Amended Complaint also could result in the dismissal of his cause of action for failure to follow this Court's Order.” Id. at 5. The Court mailed this Order to Plaintiff at the most recent address it has for him, and that Order has not been returned to the Court as undeliverable or as otherwise failing to reach Plaintiff. The Court has not received any pleading from Plaintiff since issuing the December 6, 2018 Order. Indeed, Plaintiff has not taken any action in this case since filing his third motion to proceed in forma pauperis on July 9, 2018.

         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 the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice, DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and ENTER the appropriate judgment of dismissal, and DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

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

         A district court may dismiss claims sua sponte pursuant to either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) or the court's inherent authority to manage its docket. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962); Coleman v. St. Lucie Cty. Jail, 433 Fed.Appx. 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)).[1] 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 Fed.Appx. 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 Fed.Appx. 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 Fed.Appx. 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 Fed.Appx. 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 Fed.Appx. at 619; see also Coleman, 433 Fed.Appx. at 719; Brown, 205 Fed.Appx. 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 Fed.Appx. at 719 (upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute § 1983 complaint, where plaintiff did not respond to court order to supply defendant's current address for purpose of service); Taylor, 251 Fed.Appx. 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 Fed.Appx. at 802-03 (upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute § 1983 claims, where plaintiff failed to follow court order to file amended complaint and court had informed plaintiff that noncompliance could lead to dismissal).

         With Plaintiff having failed to file a response to this Court's Order, the Court is unable to move forward with this case. Moreover, though Plaintiff was given ample time to follow the Court's directives, he has not made any effort to do so or to inform the Court as to why he cannot comply with its directives. Indeed, Plaintiff has not taken any action in this case since he filed his third motion to proceed in forma pauperis on July 9, 2018.

         Thus, I RECOMMEND the Court DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint, doc. 1, for failure to prosecute and failure to follow this Court's Order.

         II. Leave to Appeal i ...


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.