United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
SULEYMAN OZERDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court sua sponte. After consideration of
the record and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that
this civil action should be dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff Daniel Charles Harris initiated this 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action on November 2, 2018, while he was
incarcerated in the Pearl River County Jail, in Poplarville,
Pearl River County, Mississippi. See Order .
According to Harris, he was released from incarceration on
January 16, 2019. See Notice  at 1.
February 5, 2019, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order 
advising Harris of certain provisions of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, Title 28, United States Code, Section
1915 and Section 1932, and Section 47-5-138 of the
Mississippi Code of 1972, for Harris's consideration in
determining whether to proceed with this case. The Order 
required Harris to file an Acknowledgment of Receipt or a
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal within 30 days. On the same
date, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order  directing
Harris to file a completed in forma pauperis
application or pay the required filing fee within 30
days. Both Orders   warned Harris that
his failure to timely comply with the requirements of the
Orders, or his failure to advise the Court of a change of
address, would result in the dismissal of his Complaint.
Order  at 2; Order  at 2. Harris did not file the
required documentation or otherwise respond to either Order.
Harris is proceeding pro se, he was provided a final
opportunity to comply with the Court's Orders prior to
the dismissal of this case. On March 21, 2019, the Court
entered an Order to Show Cause  which required that, on
or before April 4, 2019, Harris: (1) file a written response,
showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for his
failure to comply with the Court's previous Orders 
; and (2) comply with the Court's previous Orders 
 by filing the required documentation. Order  at 1-2.
Harris was again warned that “if he fails to fully
comply with this Order in a timely manner or if he fails to
keep this Court informed of his current address, this case
will be dismissed without further written notice.”
Id. at 2. Harris did not respond to the Order to
Show Cause  or otherwise contact the Court about his
case, and Harris has taken no action in the case since
January 22, 2019.
Court has the authority to dismiss an action for a
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
R.R., 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 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 District Courts.”
Id. at 630-31.
did not comply with three Court Orders after being warned
that failing to do so would result in the dismissal of his
lawsuit. Specifically, Harris was warned in a total of five
Orders and a Notice of Assignment that his failure to comply
with a Court Order or his failure to keep the Court informed
of his current address may lead to the dismissal of this
case. See Order  at 2; Order  at 2; Order 
at 2; Order  at 2; Order  at 2; Not. of Assign. [1-2]
at 1. Despite these warnings, Harris has not contacted the
Court since January 22, 2019. Such inaction represents a
clear record of delay or contumacious conduct. It is apparent
that Harris 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
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 enter pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 58.