Opinion
5:23-CV-00369-TES-CHW
02-12-2024
WILLIAM JAMES KNIGHT, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN JOE WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff William James Knight, an inmate presently incarcerated in the Special Management Unit in Jackson, Georgia, has filed a pro se Complaint seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted, and he was ordered to pay an initial partial filing fee in the amount of $20.00. Plaintiff was further advised that he could file a renewed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis if circumstances had changed and he was unable to pay that amount. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to comply, and he was warned that the failure to fully and timely comply with the Court's orders and instructions could result in the dismissal of this action. See generally Order, Oct. 20, 2023, ECF No. 4.
Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for an extension of time to pay the initial partial filing fee (ECF No. 10). The Court granted this motion and allowed Plaintiff an additional fourteen (14) days to pay the initial partial filing fee or to submit a renewed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis explaining his inability to pay. See generally Order, Nov. 20, 2023, ECF No. 11.
The time for compliance passed, and Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee, submit a renewed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or explain his noncompliance. As such, Plaintiff was ordered to respond and show cause why this case should not be dismissed for the failure to comply with the Court's previous orders and instructions. Plaintiff was again given fourteen (14) days to respond, and he was again warned that the failure to comply with the Court's orders and instructions would result in the dismissal of his Complaint. See generally Order, Dec. 28, 2023, ECF No. 16. The time for compliance has again passed, and Plaintiff has still failed to pay the filing fee, file a renewed motion for leave to to proceed in forma pauperis, or explain why he has not paid the fee.
Plaintiff has filed several documents concerning his mental health (ECF Nos. 15, 17, 18, 20). Among other things, Plaintiff contends in these documents that “[m]ental health disorders severely impede [his] functioning of everyday life” and that his diagnoses of major depressive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder “severely hinder Plaintiff's ability to effectively and efficiently state his claim.” Mot. Appoint Counsel 4, ECF No. 8. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has been given multiple chances to comply with the Court's orders, and his filings show that he has been able not only to explain the merits of his claims and move for relief in this Court, but also to navigate the prison bureaucracy. See, e.g., Attach. 2 to Mot. 2, ECF No. 8-1 (prison form requesting books submitted to prison officials by Plaintiff). Despite this, Plaintiff has not offered any explanation for his failure to comply with the Court's filing fee requirements. As Plaintiff was previously warned, the failure to comply with the Court's orders and instructions is grounds for dismissing this case. It is accordingly RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; see also Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep't, 205 Fed.Appx. 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”) (citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)).
There is a chance that the applicable statute of limitations has run or is about to run on at least some of Plaintiff's claims. “[W]here a dismissal without prejudice has the effect of precluding the plaintiff from re-filing his claim due to the running of the statute of limitations, it is tantamount to a dismissal with prejudice.” Stephenson v. Doe, 554 Fed.Appx. 835, 837 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Justice v. United States, 6 F.3d 1474, 1482 n.15 (11th Cir. 1993)). It is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice to its refiling. But, if this dismissal is effectively with prejudice, dismissal is nonetheless appropriate because “a clear record of delay or willful misconduct exists, and . . . lesser sanctions are inadequate to correct such conduct.” Stephenson, 554 Fed.Appx. at 837 (citations omitted). The Court ordered plaintiff to comply with its orders and instructions on more than one occasion and specifically warned Plaintiff each time that failure to comply would result in dismissal of this action. Thus, even though this dismissal is intended to be without prejudice, dismissal with prejudice would also be appropriate. See Hickman v. Hickman, 563 Fed.Appx. 742, 744 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (upholding sua sponte dismissal with prejudice for failure to properly respond to the district court's order); Eades v. Ala. Dep't of Human Res., 298 Fed.Appx. 862, 864 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (same). The Court notes, however, that Plaintiff will have one last chance to respond to this recommendation of dismissal by objecting to it in accordance with the directions set forth herein.
OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation with the Honorable Tilman E. Self, III, United States District Judge, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of this Recommendation. Any objection is limited in length to TWENTY (20) PAGES. See M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.4. The parties may seek an extension of time in which to file written objections, provided a request for an extension is filed prior to the deadline for filing written objections. Failure to object in accordance with the provisions of § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district judge's order based on factual and legal conclusions to which no objection was timely made. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.