Opinion
5:23-cv-00354-TES-CHW
01-29-2024
ABDUL MALIK BEY, Plaintiff, v. LAWRENCE WHITTINGTON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
Plaintiff Abdul Malik Bey, a prisoner in Dooly State Prison in Unadilla, Georgia, filed a handwritten document, which the Clerk docketed as a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also filed a handwritten motion for leave to proceed in this case in forma pauperis. Mot. for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 3. Because Plaintiff did not file either the complaint or the motion to proceed in forma pauperis on the required form, the United States Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to recast his complaint on the § 1983 form and to file a proper and complete motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Order, ECF No. 5. The Magistrate Judge gave Plaintiff fourteen days to complete these actions and cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to do so may result in the Court dismissing his complaint. Id.
More than fourteen days passed after the Magistrate Judge entered that order, and Plaintiff did not file a recast complaint or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. As a result, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case based on his failure to comply with the earlier order. Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 7. The Magistrate Judge gave Plaintiff another fourteen days to respond and cautioned him that his failure to do so would likely result in the Court dismissing this action. Id.
Thereafter, the United States Postal Service returned the order to show cause with a notation that the wrong identification number was on the envelope. Mail Returned, ECF No. 8. The Clerk corrected Plaintiff's identification number and resent the order to show cause. More than fourteen days have now passed since the Clerk resent the show cause order. In that time, Plaintiff has not responded to that order. Thus, because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the previous orders or to otherwise prosecute his case, the Court now DISMISSES the complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Brown v Tallahassee Police Dep't, 205 Fed.Appx. 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (first citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); and then citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”).
SO ORDERED.