PIERCE v. EDWARDS

United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia

PIERCE v. EDWARDS

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION ANTRAVENO JAROD PIERCE, : Plaintiff, v. : : NO. 7:23-cv-00014-WLS-TQL Chief Judge JOHN KENT : EDWARDS, JR., ef al., : Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff Antreveno Jarod Pierce filed a civil rights complaint under

42 U.S.C. § 1983

, Compl., ECF No, 1. On initial review of Plaintiff's complaint, it was unclear whether Plaintiff was actually seeking relief under

42 U.S.C. § 1983

or whether, instead, Plaintiff intended to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2254

. As a result, Plaintiff was ordered to clarify whether he intended to file a § 1983 civil rights action or a § 2254 habeas petition before this case could proceed. Order, ECF No. 4. Plaintiff was also ordered to file a certified account statement in support of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. id. Plaintiff was given fourteen days to comply and was cautioned that his failure to do so could result in the dismissal of this case. Jd. More than fourteen days passed following entry of that order, and Plaintiff did not take any of the ordered actions or otherwise respond to the order. Accordingly, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause to the Court why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to comply with the prior order. Plaintiff was given fourteen days to respond and

was cautioned that his failure to do so would likely result in the dismissal of this case. More than fourteen days have passed since entry of the show cause order, and Plaintiff has not responded to that order. Thus, because Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s orders or otherwise prosecute this case, the complaint is now DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t,

205 F. App’x 802, 802

(11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (“The court may dismiss an

action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.” (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Lopez v. Aransas Cty, Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 ¥.2d 541, 544 (Sth Cir, 1978))). SO ORDERED, this 27. day of April, 2023. .

kt Loner W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Reference

Status
Unknown