Blakney v. FDC Miami

Opinion

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Larry Blakney, Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 20-cv-22034-Civ-Scola Catherine Brewton and others, ) Defendants. ) Order Dismissing Case On August 25, 2020, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Larry Blakney’s pro se second amended complaint because he once again failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Order, ECF No. 15.) In doing so, the Court advised Blakney that if he wanted to pursue his claims, he must file a third amended complaint and an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id. at 4.) The Court cautioned, however, that if Blakney failed to comply with the Court’s order by September 14, 2020, his case would be dismissed with prejudice. (Jd.) That date has come and gone and Blakney has failed to comply. A district court may dismiss a case, on its own initiative, if a plaintiff abandons its prosecution of the suit. Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) with Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). Courts are vested with this inherent power “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases” and “to clear their calendars of cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief.” Link, 370 U.S. 630-31. The Court finds Blakney has abandoned his prosecution of this matter. The Court, thus, dismisses this case with prejudice, and directs the Clerk of the Court to close the matter. Any pending motions are denied as moot. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to the Plaintiff at the address indicated on the docket. Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on September 22, /) Robert N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge