Opinion
5:24-CV-00177-MTT-TQL
09-24-2024
VRAIMONE PARKER, Plaintiff, v. Warden JOE WILLIAMS, et al., Defendant.
ORDER
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
Pro se Plaintiff Vraimone Germaine Parker, a prisoner confined in the Georgia Diagnostic & Classifications Prison in Jackson, Georgia filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis without the statutory supporting documents. ECF No. 3. On August 2, 2024, Plaintiff was ordered to recast his complaint and was provided specific instructions on how to do so. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff was further ordered to either submit the statutory documents to support his motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee. Id. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to comply with the Court's order and was informed that failure to comply could result in dismissal of this action. Id. Plaintiff failed to respond.
Therefore, on August 28, 2024, the Court notified Plaintiff that it had not received a recast complaint nor was the incomplete motion to proceed in forma pauperis addressed. ECF No. 6. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's previous order. Id. The Court unambiguously informed Plaintiff that this action could be dismissed if he failed to comply with this Court's orders. Id. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond. Id. Plaintiff has not responded.
Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's orders or otherwise prosecute his case, this complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep't, 205 Fed.Appx. 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and Lopez v. Aransas Cty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)); Duong Thanh Ho v. Costello, 757 Fed.Appx. 912 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sua sponte dismissing without prejudice prisoner's Pro se § 1983 complaint for failure to comply with court order to file amended complaint where order expressly informed prisoner of deficiencies in his complaint and rules that he needed to follow in filing amended complaint).
SO ORDERED.