United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
GUIROLA, JR. CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court sua sponte. After consideration of
the record in this case and relevant legal authorities, and
for the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that this
civil action should be dismissed without prejudice.
se Plaintiff Sedrick Dewayne Bohannon initiated this
action on August 24, 2016, while he was incarcerated at the
South Mississippi Correctional Institution, Leakesville,
Mississippi. (Compl. 1, ECF No. 1). On October 5, 2016,
Plaintiff filed a change of address  reflecting his
release from incarceration. On October 24, 2016, the
Magistrate Judge entered an Order  directing Plaintiff to
file a response to provide specific information regarding his
claims on or before November 23, 2016. Plaintiff was
cautioned that his “failure to advise this Court of a
change of address or his failure to timely comply with this
order or any other order of this Court . . . may result in
this cause being dismissed without prejudice.” Order
 at 2. Plaintiff failed to comply with this Order or
otherwise contact the Court.
December 12, 2016, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order to
Show Cause  requiring that Plaintiff, on or before
January 3, 2017: (1) file a written response, showing cause
why this case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's
failure to comply with the Court's prior Order ; and
(2) comply with the Court's prior Order  by providing
the required additional information concerning his claims.
Order  at 1-2. Plaintiff was once again cautioned that
his “failure to advise the Court of a change of address
or failure to timely comply with any order of the Court . . .
may result in this cause being dismissed without
prejudice.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff did not
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he was provided one
final opportunity to comply with the Court's Order prior
to the dismissal of this case. On January 17, 2017, the Court
entered an Order to Show Cause requiring Plaintiff, on or
before February 10, 2017: (1) to file a written response,
showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for
Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Orders
[10, 11] entered October 24, 2016, and December 12, 2016; and
(2) to comply with the Court's Orders [10, 11], by filing
a response as set forth in the Order. Order  at 1-3.
Plaintiff was warned that his “failure to timely comply
with this Order or his failure to keep this Court informed of
his current address . . . will result in this cause
being dismissed without further notice to the
Plaintiff.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff failed to
comply with the Order to Show Cause  or otherwise contact
Court has the authority to dismiss an action for
Plaintiff's failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b), and under its inherent authority to
dismiss the action sua sponte. See Link v.
Wabash Railroad, 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962);
McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir.
1988). The Court must be able to clear its calendars of cases
that remain dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness
of the parties seeking relief, so as to achieve the orderly
and expeditious disposition of cases. Link, 370 U.S.
at 630. Such a “sanction is necessary in order to
prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and
to avoid congestion in the calendars” of the Court.
Id. at 630-31.
did not comply with three Court Orders even after being
warned several times that failing to comply with a court
order would result in the dismissal of his lawsuit. Order
 at 2; Order  at 3; Order  at 3. Plaintiff has
not contacted the Court since October 5, 2016, when he filed
his notice  of a change of address. Such inaction presents
a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by Plaintiff.
It is apparent to the Court that Plaintiff no longer wishes
to pursue this lawsuit. As the record demonstrates, lesser
sanctions than dismissal have not prompted “diligent
prosecution” but instead such efforts have proven
futile. See Tello v. Comm'r. of Internal
Revenue, 410 F.3d 743, 744 (5th Cir. 2005). Dismissal
without prejudice is warranted.
reasons stated herein, this civil action will be dismissed
THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, for the reasons stated
above, this civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
failure to obey the Court's Orders and to prosecute. A
separate final judgment ...