noting that “dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion”
How later courts described this case
- noting that “dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally 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
NORTHERN DIVISION
TODD STEPHEN NEISLER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 2:25-CV-209-WKW
) [WO]
KAY IVEY, WARDEN CROW, )
WARDEN BROWN, and JEFF )
DUNN, )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Plaintiff Todd Stephen Neisler, an inmate in the custody of the Alabama
Department of Corrections, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for alleged violations
of his federal constitutional rights while incarcerated at the Elmore Correctional
Facility. Contemporaneously with the initiation of his complaint on February 26,
2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. # 2.)
In an Order entered on March 24, 2025, the court directed Plaintiff to submit an
inmate account statement by April 7, 2025. (Doc. # 7.) The Order also cautioned
Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of
this action. (Doc. # 7 at 2.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an account statement or
otherwise responded to the Order.
Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action and comply with the
court’s Order, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. See Moon v.
Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (noting that “dismissal upon disregard
of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an
abuse of discretion”) (citations omitted). 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. Co., 370 U.S.
626, 629–30 (1962). This authority “is necessary in order to prevent undue delays
in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the
District Courts.” Id. It further empowers the courts “to manage their own affairs so
as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Id. at 630–31.
Dismissal as a sanction, however, “is warranted only upon a ‘clear record of delay
or willful contempt and a finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice.’” Mingo
v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op of Fla., 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989) (per
curiam) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th
Cir. 1985)). In this instance, where Plaintiff has failed to comply despite the court’s
clear admonition, the court finds a clear record of delay and that sanctions lesser
than dismissal would not suffice. See id.
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED
without prejudice.
Final Judgment will be entered separately.
DONE this 22nd day of April, 2025.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE