United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court sua sponte. After consideration of
the record in this case and relevant legal authority, and for
the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that this civil
action should be dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff Charles Craig Parker initiated this action on
January 25, 2017, while he was incarcerated in the Pearl
River County Jail, Poplarville, Mississippi. On February 21,
2017, United States Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo entered
an Order  requiring Plaintiff to file a response, on or
before March 22, 2017, providing specific information
regarding his claims. The Order  warned Plaintiff that his
failure to timely comply with the requirements of the Order
or advise the Court of a change of address may lead to the
dismissal of the Complaint. Order  at 3. Two days later,
Plaintiff filed a Change  of Address and the Court entered
an Order  directing the Clerk to mail a copy of the Order
 entered February 21, 2017, to Plaintiff at his new
address. That Order  further directed Plaintiff to file
his response on or before March 22, 2017. Plaintiff did not
respond to this Order .
April 14, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order to Show
Cause  requiring that Plaintiff on or before May 8, 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 Orders [6, 8]; and (2) comply with
the Court's prior Order , by filing the required
response. Order  at 1-2. Plaintiff was cautioned that his
failure to timely comply with this Order or his failure to
keep the Court informed of his current address may result in
the dismissal of this case. Id. at 2. The envelope
 containing the Order to Show Cause  was returned by
the Postal Service with a hand-written notation “Return
to Sender no longer at facility” as well as a stamped
notation “return to sender, not deliverable as
addressed, unable to forward.” Plaintiff did not
respond to this Order  or provide a change of address.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he was provided one final
opportunity to comply with the Court's Orders prior to
the dismissal of this case. On May 31, 2017, the Magistrate
Judge entered a Second and Final Order to Show Cause .
The Order  required that on or before June 22, 2017,
Plaintiff: (1) file a written response, showing cause why
this case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure
to comply with the Court's previous Orders; and (2)
comply with the Court's previous Orders by filing the
required responses. Order  at 1-2. Plaintiff was again
warned that his “failure to timely comply with the
Order of the Court or failure to advise the Court of a change
of address will be deemed as a purposeful delay and
contumacious act by Plaintiff and will result in
this cause being dismissed without prejudice and
without further notice to Plaintiff.”
Id. at 2. The envelope  containing this Order
was returned by the Postal Service with a hand-written
notation “Return to Sender” and a stamped
notation “return to sender, refused, unable to
forward.” Plaintiff did not respond to this Order or
provide a change of address.
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.
did not comply with three Court Orders and did not provide a
change of address even after being warned several times that
failing to do so might result in the dismissal of his
lawsuit. Order  at 2; Order  at 2; Order 
at 3; Order  at 1; Order  at 2; Order  at 2.
Plaintiff has not contacted the Court since February 23,
2017. Such inaction represents 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., 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 will be entered pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 58.