Alonsa v. Wilcher

• Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
• Decided: November 9, 2022
• Docket: 4:22-cv-00214
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

HUMBERTO MENDEZ ALONSA, ) et al., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV422-214 ) SHERIFF JOHN T. WILCHER, ) ) Defendant. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Pro se plaintiff Humberto Medez Alonsa filed this case asserting various unconstitutional conditions at Chatham County Detention Center. See doc. 1 at 4-5, 12-16. The Court granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directed him to complete and return the necessary forms. See doc. 5 at 3-7. The Court also recommended dismissal of any claims purportedly asserted on behalf of other plaintiffs, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Id. at 7-9. Because Alonsa was not permitted to pursue other plaintiffs’ claims, the Court directed him to submit an amended complaint, in addition to the forms required to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. at 9. The deadline for him to comply with the Court’s instructions has passed and the Court’s Order has been returned as undeliverable. See doc. 11.

Given that the Court’s Order was returned, it appears that Alonsa has failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address, in violation

of the Court’s Local Rules. See S.D. Ga. L. Civ. R. 11.1 (“Each attorney and pro se litigant has a continuing obligation to apprise the Court of any address change.”). This Court has the authority to prune cases from its

dockets where parties have failed to comply with its Orders. See S.D. Ga. L.R. 41.1(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962) (courts have the inherent authority to dismiss claims for lack of

prosecution); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989) (“The district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.”); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir.

1983); Floyd v. United States, CV491-277 (S.D. Ga. June 10, 1992). Alonsa’s failure to comply with the Court’s Rules and to comply with the Court’s instructions provides sufficient reason to dismiss his Complaint.

Accordingly, Alonsa’s Complaint should be DISMISSED. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). This Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of service, any party may file written objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations.” Any request for additional time to file objections should be filed with the Clerk for consideration by the assigned district judge. After the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this R&R together with any objections to the assigned district judge. The district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 686(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonette v. V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F. App’x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Mitchell v. United States, 612 F. App’x 542, 545 (11th Cir. 2015). SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED, this 9th day of November, 2022. Aiigho~d lies CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA