Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00794/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00794-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MAURICE D. MATTHEWS, #251986, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-794-CSC

) [WO]

)

JOHN WILLIAMS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Maurice D. Matthews ["Matthews"], an indigent inmate, initiated this 42 U.S.C. §

1983 action challenging general conditions of confinement present during his brief

incarceration at the Lowndes County Jail. The order of procedure entered in this case

specifically directed Matthews to immediately inform the court of any change in his address. 

September 18, 2012 Order - Doc. No. 4 at 5-6. 

On January 3, 2013, this court issued an order, a copy of which the Clerk mailed to

Matthews. The postal service returned this order because Matthews no longer resided at the

address he last provided to the court. In light of the foregoing, the court entered an order

requiring that on or before January 31, 2013 Matthews inform the court of his present

address. January 23, 2013 Order - Doc. No. 20. The order specifically advised Matthews

that this case could not proceed if his whereabouts remained unknown and cautioned himthat

his failure to comply with its directives would result in a Recommendation that this case be

Case 2:12-cv-00794-CSC Document 22 Filed 04/03/13 Page 1 of 2
dismissed. Id. at 1. The court has received no response from Matthews to the

aforementioned order nor has he provided the court with his current address as required by

the order of procedure. 

As is clear from the foregoing, Matthews has failed to comply with the directives of

the orders entered by this court. In addition, this case cannot properly proceed in his absence. 

It likewise appears that Matthews is no longer interested in the prosecution of this case. The

court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d

835, 837 (11 Cir.1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal th

for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232

Fed. Appx. 924 (11 Cir.2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate's th

§ 1983 action for failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with court's prior order

directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply). Consequently,

the court concludes that the plaintiff's failure to comply with the orders of this court and his

failure to properly prosecute this action warrant dismissal of this case. 

A separate document of final judgment will accompany this memorandum opinion. 

Done this 3rd day of April, 2013.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:12-cv-00794-CSC Document 22 Filed 04/03/13 Page 2 of 2