Cox v. Helms et al (INMATE 2)(CONSENT), No. 1:2018cv00661 - Document 40 (M.D. Ala. 2020)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER, as further set out in order. A separate Judgment will be entered. Signed by Honorable Judge Stephen Michael Doyle on 1/28/2020. (kh, )

Download PDF
Cox v. Helms et al (INMATE 2)(CONSENT) Doc. 40 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION MAURICE ODELL COX, #271280, Plaintiff, v. TONY HELMS, SHERIFF, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-661-SMD ) [WO] ) ) ) OPINION and ORDER1 Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on July 13, 2018. When he filed suit, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Fountain Correctional Facility in Atmore, Alabama. On October 15, 2018, the court entered an order of procedure directing Defendants to file an answer and special report. (Doc. 12). This order also directed Plaintiff to “immediately inform the court and Defendant[s] or Defendant[s]’ counsel of record of any change in his address.” (Doc. 12) at 3, ¶8. The order further advised Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to provide a correct address to this court within ten (10) days following any change of address will result in the dismissal of this action.” Id. On January 2, 2020, Plaintiff’s copy of an order entered December 23, 2019, was returned to the court marked as undeliverable because Plaintiff is no longer at the last address he provided for service. The court entered an order on January 6, 2020, requiring that by January 16, 2020, Plaintiff show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed for his failure to keep the court 1 The parties in this case have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) for all proceedings. Specifically, the parties executed a written consent form which reads, in relevant part, that in accordance with the provisions of § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, the parties in this case “consent to have a United States magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of a final judgment, and post-judgment proceedings.” Doc. 25. Dockets.Justia.com apprised of his current address as directed in the court’s order of procedure. This order specifically cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the directives of the January 6 order would result in the dismissal of this case. Id. Plaintiff’s copy of the court’s January 6 order was returned to the court January 22, 2020, marked as undeliverable. The foregoing makes clear Plaintiff has failed to comply with the directives of the orders entered by this court and reflects a lack of interest in the continued prosecution of this case. This action cannot proceed properly in Plaintiff’s absence. The court, therefore, concludes dismissal of the complaint is appropriate for Plaintiff’s failures to prosecute this action and comply with the orders of the court. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (explaining that 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 his failure to comply with court’s prior order directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply). A separate Judgment will be entered. Done, this 28th day of January, 2020. /s/ Stephen M. Doyle STEPHEN M. DOYLE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.