From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Monroe v. Jones

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
Jun 14, 2000
Civil Action 00-0156-BH-S (S.D. Ala. Jun. 14, 2000)

Opinion

Civil Action 00-0156-BH-S

June 14, 2000


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1), together with a Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 4). This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4), and is now before the Court for Plaintiff's failure to pay the partial filing fee.

Upon review of Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees, the Court found that Plaintiff was required to pay a $6.00 partial filing fee. On April 4, 2000, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the partial filing fee within twenty days (Doc. 5). Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply with the order within the prescribed time would result in the dismissal of his action. Plaintiff has not paid the partial filing fee, nor has he otherwise responded to the Court's order.

Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's order and to prosecute this action by paying the partial filing fee, and upon consideration of the alternatives that are available to the Court, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as no other lesser sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (interpreting Rule 41(b) not to restrict the court's inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte an action for lack of prosecution); World Thrust Films, Inc. v. International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989) cert denied, Ballard v. Volunteers of America, 493 U.S. 1084, 110 S.Ct. 1145, 107 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1990); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1983); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983). Accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (ruling that federal courts' inherent power to manage their own proceedings authorized the imposition of attorney's fees and related expenses as a sanction);Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (11th Cir. 1993) (finding that the court's inherent power to manage actions before it permitted the imposition of fines), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 863, 114 S.Ct. 181, 126 L.Ed.2d 140 (1993).


Summaries of

Monroe v. Jones

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
Jun 14, 2000
Civil Action 00-0156-BH-S (S.D. Ala. Jun. 14, 2000)
Case details for

Monroe v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:MYRON MONROE, AIS #136734, Plaintiff, vs. CHARLIE JONES, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

Date published: Jun 14, 2000

Citations

Civil Action 00-0156-BH-S (S.D. Ala. Jun. 14, 2000)