Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00414/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00414-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, #265 551, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-414-WC 

 ) [WO] 

COMMISSIONER DUNN, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on June 11, 2015. On August 26, 

2015, the court directed Defendants to file an answer and written report addressing 

Plaintiff's claims for relief. In compliance with the court’s order, Defendants submitted 

an answer and written report on October 7, 2015, which contained relevant evidentiary 

materials refuting the allegations in the complaint. Doc. Nos. 10, 11. Upon review of 

this report, the court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ 

answer and written report. Doc. No. 13. The order advised Plaintiff that his failure to 

respond to the report would be treated by the court “as an abandonment of the claims set 

forth in the complaint and as a failure to prosecute this action.” Id. at 1. The order 

“specifically cautioned [Plaintiff] that [his failure] to file a response in compliance with 

the directives of this order” would result in the dismissal of this civil action. Id. 

The time allotted Plaintiff for filing a response in compliance with the directives 

of the court’s October 8, 2015, order expired on October 29, 2015. As of the present 

Case 2:15-cv-00414-WC Document 15 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

date, Plaintiff has failed to file a response in opposition to Defendants’ written report. 

The court, therefore, concludes this case should be dismissed. 

The court has reviewed the file to determine whether a drastic measure less than 

dismissal is appropriate. After such review, dismissal is the proper course of action. 

Plaintiff is an indigent individual. The imposition of monetary or other punitive 

sanctions against him would be ineffectual. Plaintiff’s inaction in the face of Defendants’ 

report and evidentiary materials refuting the claims raised suggests he does not seek to 

proceed with this case. It, therefore, appears that any additional effort by this court to 

secure his compliance would be unavailing. Consequently, the court concludes that 

Plaintiff’s abandonment of his claims, his failure to comply with the orders of this court, 

and his failure to properly prosecute this cause of action warrant dismissal of this case. 

Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant 

has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of 

discretion.); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232 F. App’x 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua 

sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate’s § 1983 action for failure to file an 

amendment to complaint in compliance with court’s prior order directing amendment and 

warning of consequences for failure to comply). 

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned concludes this case shall be dismissed 

without prejudice. 

A separate judgment follows. 

Case 2:15-cv-00414-WC Document 15 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

Done this 24th day of November, 2015. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00414-WC Document 15 Filed 11/24/15 Page 3 of 3