United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
GUIROLA, JR.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 Derek Anton Holmes brings this conditions of
confinement Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At
the time of filing this action, Holmes was incarcerated at
the Harrison County Adult Detention Center in Gulfport,
Mississippi. Holmes is proceeding in forma pauperis.
See Order .
Notice of Assignment
October 23, 2017, the Clerk issued a Notice of Assignment
[Ex. 1-2] advising Holmes that he was required to notify the
Court in writing if his address changed and it also warned
Holmes that his failure to advise the Court of a change of
address or his failure to timely comply with any order of the
Court would be deemed a purposeful delay and contumacious act
that may result in the dismissal of this case.
Order of November 17, 2017
November 17, 2017, the Court entered an Order  advising
Holmes that the Harrison County Jail is not a separate legal
entity that may be sued under § 1983. The Order 
directed Holmes to file a written response to name a viable
Defendant on or before December 15, 2017. The Order  also
warned Holmes that failure to timely comply or failure to
keep the Court informed of his current address will lead to
the dismissal of this case. The Order was mailed to Holmes at
the Harrison County Adult Detention Center which is the
address Holmes provided on page one of his Complaint. Compl.
 at 1. On November 27, 2017, the envelope  containing
this Order  was returned by the postal service with the
label “return to sender - not deliverable as addressed
- unable to forward.” Ret. Mail . The envelope also
had a handwritten notation reading “RTS- Released
11-6-17.” Id. Holmes failed to comply with
this Order or otherwise contact the Court.
Show Cause Order
December 29, 2017, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause
 requiring that Holmes, on or before January 12, 2018: (1)
file a written response showing cause why this case should
not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the
Court's previous Order; (2) file a response that supplies
the information required by the Order  of November 17,
2017, and (3) file a written response that states one current
mailing address for the record in this case. See
Order  at 1-2. The Show Cause Order  warned Holmes that
“if he fails to fully comply with this Order in a
timely manner this case will be dismissed without further
written notice to the Plaintiff.” Order  at 2. As
directed, the Clerk mailed a copy of the Show Cause Order to
Holmes at the Harrison County Adult Detention Center and to a
non-incarcerated address that Holmes provided on page two of
his Complaint. See Order  at 2; Compl.  at 2.
On January 8, 2018, the envelope  containing the copy of
the Show Cause Order  that was sent to the Harrison County
Adult Detention Center was returned by the postal service
with the label “return to sender - not deliverable as
addressed - unable to forward.” Ret. Mail . Holmes
failed to comply with the Show Cause Order or otherwise
contact the Court.
Court has the authority to dismiss an action sua sponte for
failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders
under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
under its inherent authority. See Link v. Wabash
R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962); Larson v. Scott, 157
F.3d 1030 (5th Cir.1998); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835
F.2d 1126 (5th Cir. 1988). The Court must be able to clear
its calendar 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 629-30.
has failed to keep this Court advised of his current address
and he has failed to comply with two Court Orders , .
Although the last two Orders ,  entered by the Court
were returned as undeliverable, one previous Order  and
the Clerk's Notice of Assignment [Ex. 1-2] were
successfully delivered to Holmes. Both of these documents
warned Holmes that his failure to keep the Court informed of
his current address or his failure to timely comply with a
Court order would result in the dismissal of this case.
See Notice [Ex. 1-2] at 1; Order  at 2.
has not contacted the Court since October 30, 2017. 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).
Docketing another show cause order would likewise be futile
when Holmes has failed to provide a valid address. Therefore,
the Court concludes that dismissal of this action is proper
for Holmes's failure to prosecute and for failure to
comply with the Orders of the Court under Rule 41(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rice v. Doe,
306 Fed.Appx. 144, 146 (5th Cir. 2009) (affirming dismissal
based on inmate's failure to comply with a court order).
Since the Defendants have not been called on to respond to