Source: http://ga.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180313_0000577.SGA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:33:26+00:00

Document:
MR. TOOL, et al., Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's directive of January 19, 2018. (Doc. 2.) For the following reasons, I RECOMMEND the Court DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint, as amended, (docs. 1, 4), for failure to prosecute and failure to follow this Court's Order and DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal. I further RECOMMEND the Court DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
On January 19, 2018, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint contesting certain conditions of his confinement at Smith State Prison in Glennville, Georgia. (Doc. 1.) However, Plaintiff did not pay the required filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis when filing this action. Accordingly, on January 19, 2018, the Clerk of Court directed Plaintiff to either pay the $400.00 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) The Clerk warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with that notice may result in dismissal of this action. That mailing was not returned as undeliverable or as otherwise failing to reach Plaintiff. Plaintiff has filed pleadings after that directive. However, Plaintiff still has not paid the requisite filing fee or moved to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Court must now determine how to address Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee and failure to comply with this Court's directive. For the reasons set forth below, I RECOMMEND the Court DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint and DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
A district court may dismiss a plaintiff's claims sua sponte pursuant to either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (“Rule 41(b)”) or the court's inherent authority to manage its docket. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962); Coleman v. St. Lucie Cty. Jail, 433 Fed.Appx. 716, 718 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)). In particular, Rule 41(b) allows for the involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff's claims where he has failed to prosecute those claims, comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or local rules, or follow a court order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); see also Coleman, 433 Fed.Appx. at 718; Sanders v. Barrett, No. 05-12660, 2005 WL 2640979, at *1 (11th Cir. Oct. 17, 2005) (citing Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 192 (11th Cir. 1993)); cf. Local R. 41.1(b) (“[T]he assigned Judge may, after notice to counsel of record, sua sponte . . . dismiss any action for want of prosecution, with or without prejudice[, ] . . . [based on] willful disobedience or neglect of any order of the Court.” (emphasis omitted)). Additionally, a district court's “power to dismiss is an inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders and ensure prompt disposition of lawsuits.” Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep't, 205 Fed.Appx. 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983)).
While the Court exercises its discretion to dismiss cases with caution, dismissal of this action without prejudice is warranted. See Coleman, 433 Fed.Appx. at 719 (upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute Section 1983 complaint, where plaintiff did not respond to court order to supply defendant's current address for purpose of service); Taylor, 251 Fed.Appx. at 620-21 (upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute, because plaintiffs insisted on going forward with deficient amended complaint rather than complying, or seeking an extension of time to comply, with court's order to file second amended complaint); Brown, 205 Fed.Appx. at 802-03 (upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute Section 1983 claims, where plaintiff failed to follow court order to file amended complaint and court had informed plaintiff that noncompliance could lead to dismissal). With Plaintiff having neither paid the filing fee nor moved to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court cannot proceed in this case. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 & 1915. Moreover, Plaintiff was given ample notice of the consequences of his failure to follow the Court's directive, and Plaintiff has not made any effort to do so or to otherwise prosecute this case.
Thus, the Court should DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff's Section 1983 Complaint, as amended, (docs. 1, 4), for failure to prosecute and failure to follow this Court's Order and DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal.
The Court should also deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Though Plaintiff has, of course, not yet filed a notice of appeal, it would be appropriate to address that issue in the Court's order of dismissal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3) (trial court may certify that appeal is not taken in good faith “before or after the notice of appeal is filed”).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.