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.
How later courts described this case
- 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.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SOLOMON LADANIEL HENDERSON, )
AIS 250233 )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:23-cv-121-ECM-SMD
) (WO)
ANNIE WARD, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INTRODUCTION
This action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is before the court on Plaintiff Solomon
LaDaniel Henderson’s complaint alleging violations of his constitutional rights. (Doc. 1.)
For the reasons discussed below, the Magistrate Judge finds that this case should be
dismissed without prejudice.
Court’s March 7 Order (Doc. 5)
Henderson, who was an inmate at the Geneva County Jail when he initiated this
action, applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), and on March 7, 2023,
after considering the inmate financial information submitted by Henderson, the court
entered an order directing Henderson to pay an initial partial filing fee of $9.67 by March
21, 2023. (Doc. 5.) The court’s March 7 Order advised Henderson that his failure to pay
the initial partial filing fee as directed would result in a recommendation by the Magistrate
Judge that his case be dismissed. (Id. at 3.) The March 7 Order also directed Henderson to
“immediately inform the court and Defendants or Defendants’ counsel of any change in
his address, i.e., if Plaintiff is transferred to a new correctional institution or released from
confinement.” (Id. at 4.) The March 7 Order further advised Henderson that “[f]ailure to
provide a correct address to this Court within ten days following any change of address
will result in dismissal of this action.” (Id.)
Court’s March 14 Order (Doc. 8)
On March 10, 2023 (Doc. 7), Henderson filed a response to the Court’s March 7
Order, but he did not submit the initial partial filing fee. Upon consideration of Henderson’s
response, the court entered an order on March 14, 2023, extending the deadline for
Henderson to pay the $9.67 initial partial filing to April 5, 2023.1 (Doc. 8.)
Court’s March 27 Order (Doc. 9)
On March 23, 2023, the mail with the copy of the court’s March 7 Order sent to
Henderson at the Geneva County Jail was returned as undeliverable, with the following
notations: “Inmate Released,” “Return to Sender,” “Unclaimed,” “unable to Forward.”
Because Henderson is no longer at the last address he provided to the court for service (the
Geneva County Jail) and his current address is unknown, the court entered an order on
March 27, 2023, requiring that by April 7, 2023, Henderson show cause why his case
should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the directive in the court’s March 7
Order that he notify the court of any change in his address, and for failing to adequately
1 On March 27, 2023, the mail with the copy of the court’s March 14 Order sent to Henderson at
the Geneva County Jail was returned as undeliverable, with the following notations: “Released,
Return to Sender” & “Return to Sender, Attempted—Not Known, Unable to Forward.”
prosecute this action. (Doc. 9.) The court’s March 27 Order specifically advised Henderson
that his case could not proceed if his whereabouts remained unknown and cautioned him
that his failure to comply with its directives would result in the dismissal of the case. (Id.
at 1–2.)
Henderson has filed no response to the court’s March 27 Order,2 and the time for
doing so has expired. The court therefore concludes that this case should be dismissed. The
court has reviewed the file to determine whether a measure less drastic than dismissal is
appropriate. See Abreu-Velez v. Board of Regents of Univ. System of Georgia, 248 F. App’x
116, 117–18 (11th Cir. 2007). After such review, the court finds dismissal is the proper
course of action. The administration of this case cannot properly proceed in Henderson’s
absence. Also, it appears Henderson may no longer be interested in the prosecution of this
case as he has failed to comply with the orders of the court. Finally, under the
circumstances, the court finds that any additional effort by this court to secure Henderson’s
compliance would be unavailing and a waste of this court’s scarce judicial resources.
Consequently, the undersigned concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. See 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
2 On April 13, 2023, the mail with the copy of the court’s March 27 Order sent to Henderson at
the Geneva County Jail was returned as undeliverable, with the following notations: “Return to
Sender, Attempted—Not Known, Unable to Forward.”
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) (observing 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.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge this case be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Henderson’s failure to comply with the orders
of the court and his failure to prosecute this action.
And it is ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file any objections to this Recommendation
by May 2, 2023. Plaintiff must specifically identify the factual findings and legal
conclusions in the Recommendation to which each objection is made; frivolous,
conclusive, or general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections
to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) bars
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.
Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); 11TH CIR. R. 3-1; see also Stein v.
Lanning Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661
F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
DONE this 18th day of April, 2023.
/s/ Stephen M. Doyle
STEPHEN M. DOYLE
CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE