United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
ANTHONY L. JOSEPH, #201467 PLAINTIFF
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DEFENDANT
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 Anthony L. Joseph brings this Complaint 
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the time of filing this
Complaint, Joseph indicated that he was incarcerated at the
Jackson County Adult Detention Center in Pascagoula,
Mississippi. Compl.  at 2, 11. Joseph is proceeding in
forma pauperis. See Order . The only named
Defendant is the State of Mississippi.
Notice of Assignment
13, 2018, the Clerk issued a Notice of Assignment [Ex. 1-1]
advising Joseph that he was required to notify the Court in
writing if his address changed and it also warned Joseph 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 August 13, 2018
review of the Complaint, the Court entered an Order 
advising Joseph that the State of Mississippi is not a person
within the meaning of § 1983. See Order .
The Order provided Joseph with “an opportunity to name
a viable Defendant prior to the dismissal of this
case.” Id. at 1. The Order  warned Joseph
that “failure to advise this Court of a change of
address or failure to timely comply with any order of this
Court will result in this cause being dismissed.”
Id. On August 20, 2018, the envelope  containing
this Order  was returned by the postal service with the
label “return to sender - refused - unable to
forward.” Ret. Mail  at 1. The envelope also had a
handwritten notation reading “No longer at ADC.”
Id. Joseph failed to comply with this Order  or
otherwise contact the Court.
Show Cause Order of September 19, 2018
September 19, 2018, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause
 requiring Joseph to take the following actions on or
before October 3, 2018: (1) file a written response showing
cause why this case should not be dismissed for his failure
to comply with a court order; and (2) comply with the Order
of August 13, 2018. See Order . The Order to
Show Cause  warned Joseph that his failure to fully
comply with the Order  in a timely manner or his failure
to keep the Court informed of his current address would
result in the dismissal of this case without further written
notice. Id. On October 1, 2018, the envelope 
containing the Order to Show Cause  was returned by the
postal service with the label “return to sender -
refused - unable to forward.” Ret. Mail  at 1. The
envelope also had a handwritten notation reading “No
longer at ADC.” Id. Joseph failed to comply
with this 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, two previous Orders , 
and the Clerk's Notice of Assignment [Ex. 1-1] were
successfully delivered to Joseph. All three of these
documents warned Joseph 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. 1-1] at 1; Order  at
2; Order  at 1.
has not contacted the Court since July 19, 2018. It is
apparent to the Court that Joseph does not wish 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). Docketing
another show cause order ...