United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
JAMES D. COLLIER, #K6825 PLAINTIFF
MDOC RECORDS DEPARTMENT, et al. DEFENDANTS
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 James D. Collier brings this conditions of
confinement Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At
the time of filing this action, Collier was incarcerated at
the South Mississippi Correctional Facility, Leakesville,
Mississippi. Compl.  at 1-2. Collier is proceeding in
forma pauperis. See Order .
August 11, 2017, the Clerk issued a Notice of Assignment [Ex.
1-2] advising Collier that he was required to notify the
Court in writing if his address changed and it also warned
Collier 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.
February 12, 2018, the Court entered an Order  directing
Collier to file a written response to provide specific
information concerning his claims. The Order  directed
Collier to file his response on or before March 6, 2018. The
Order  also warned Collier 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 Collier at the South Mississippi Correctional Facility,
which is the address Collier provided in his Complaint.
Compl.  at 1-2. The envelope  containing the Order 
was returned by the postal service with a stamped notation
“Returned to Sender - No. Longer at this Institution -
No. Forwarding Address on File.” Ret. Mail .
March 21, 2018, the Court entered an Order  to Show Cause
directing Collier to file a written response explaining why
this civil action should not be dismissed and to provide
additional information concerning his claims as directed in
the Order  entered February 12, 2018. That Order 
directed Collier to file his response on or before April 11,
2018. The Order  also warned Collier that failure to
timely comply or failure to keep the Court informed of his
current address may result in the dismissal of this case. The
Order was mailed to Collier at the South Mississippi
Correctional Facility, which is the address Collier provided
in his Complaint. Compl.  at 1-2. On March 28, 2018, 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 . Collier failed to comply with this Order or
otherwise contact the Court.
April 26, 2018, the Court entered a Second and Final Show
Cause Order  directing Collier to show cause, on or
before May 18, 2018, why this case should not be dismissed
for his failure to comply with the Court's previous
Orders [8, 10]. The Show Cause Order  warned Collier that
failure to timely comply or failure to advise the Court of a
change of address would result in the dismissal of this case
without further written notice. The Show Cause Order was also
mailed to Collier at the South Mississippi Correctional
Facility. On May 4, 2018, the envelope  containing the
Second and Final Show Cause Order  was returned by the
postal service with the label “Return to Sender -
Refused - Unable to Forward.” Ret. Mail . Collier
failed to comply with the Second and Final 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 three Court Orders [8, 10,
12]. Collier has not contacted the Court since August 25,
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). Therefore, the Court concludes that
dismissal of this action is proper for Collier'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 Collier's pleading,
and the Court has not considered the merits of Collier's
claims, the Court's Order of Dismissal is without
prejudice. See Munday/Elkins Auto. Partners, Ltd. v.
Smith, 201 Fed.Appx. 265, 267 (5th Cir. 2006).
reasons stated herein, this civil action will be dismissed
IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this civil
action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
failure to obey the Court's Orders and to prosecute. A
separate final judgment will ...