Holmes v. Chatham County Detention Center

• Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
• Decided: March 22, 2024
• Docket: 4:24-cv-00028
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

KEIRON KENNETH ) HOLMES, SR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV424-028 ) CHATHAM COUNTY ) DETENTION CENTER, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Pro se plaintiff Keiron Kenneth Holmes, Sr. filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions and seeking to pursue his and other inmates’ claims through a class action. See generally doc. 1. The Court granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directed him to return the necessary forms and recommended that the other plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed. See, e.g., doc. 6. The District Judge adopted that recommendation and reassigned this case, to the extent that Holmes’ claims remain pending, to the undersigned, pursuant to Holmes’ consent. See doc. 9. However, Holmes has failed to comply with the Court’s prior Order to return forms required to proceed in forma pauperis and to restate the claims in the Complaint to specify Holmes’ claims. See generally docket; see also doc. 6 at 4-6. He

has, therefore, failed to comply with the Court’s Order. His Complaint is, therefore, DISMISSED. Doc. 1.

A district court retains the inherent power to police its docket and to enforce its orders. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir.

1989); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dept., 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint may be dismissed

either for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with an order of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Additionally, this Court’s Local Rules provide that the Court may dismiss an action for want of prosecution

when a party has “willful[ly] disobe[yed] . . . any order of the Court” or for “[a]ny other failure to prosecute a civil action with reasonable promptness.” S.D. Ga. L.R. 41.1(b), (c). The Court’s Order expressly

warned Holmes that failure to comply with either one of the Court’s instructions could result in dismissal. See doc. 6 at 7. Holmes’ failure to properly execute and return the required forms and submit the required Amended Complaint warrants dismissal. See Brown, 205 F. App’x at 802 (“Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.”). Accordingly, his Complaint is DISMISSED for failing to obey a court order and failing to prosecute his case. Doc. 1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of March, 2024.

bon CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA