Opinion
Case No. CV414-169
09-22-2014
JOSEPH E. ALLEN, Petitioner, v. CLAY TATUM, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This Court directed Joseph E. Allen to show why his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition should not be denied on untimeliness grounds. Doc. 3. That Order was served upon him but has come back as undeliverable, with no forwarding address. Doc. 7. Per Local Rule 11.1, it was Allen's continuing duty to keep the Court apprised of his current address. Without it, the Court cannot move this case forward or even communicate with him.
A court has the power to prune from its docket those cases that amount to no more than mere deadwood. Accordingly, Joseph E. Allen's § 2254 petition should be DISMISSED without prejudice for his failure to prosecute this action. L.R. 41(b); see Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (courts have the inherent authority to dismiss claims for lack of prosecution); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989).
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED, this 22nd day of September, 2014.
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA