UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

JIMMIE LEE, III, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV420-197 ) SHERIFF JOHN T. WILCHER, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER The Court directed pro se plaintiff Jimmie Lee, III, to show cause why his case should not be dismissed because his allegation of poverty, in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), was untrue. See doc. 19. The deadline for him to respond has passed without any response. See generally docket. Since his allegation of poverty was untrue, his case is DISMISSED

(e)(2)(A). The Court’s show-cause Order was also returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable. See doc. 20. It appears, therefore, that Lee has not complied with his obligation to keep the Court appraised of his current address. See S.D.Ga. L. Civ. R. 11.1 His failure to obey the Court’s Order and to prosecute this case provide independently sufficient justification to dismiss his case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

As the Court’s prior Order noted, Lee’s application to proceed in forma pauperis disclosed a balance of $4.00 in his prisoner trust account,

and did not disclose the total deposits to that account. See doc. 19 at 1; see also doc. 2 at 2. Subsequent financial information indicated that his average monthly deposits were over $200 and his average monthly

balance was $28.13. See doc. 19 at 2; see also doc. 12. Given the deposits, Lee’s allegation of poverty was untrue. Dismissal is mandatory if the Court determines that a plaintiff, who was permitted to proceed IFP, is

not indigent. See, e.g., Pinkston v. Univ. of S. Fla. Bd. of Tr.,

, at *2 n. 4 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 2016); Flowers v. Life University,

, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 7, 2006) (citing Thomas v. Gen.

Motors Acceptance Corp.,

(7th Cir. 2002)). Since Lee has not provided any explanation or jusitification for the apparent inaccuracy of his initial allegation of poverty, the Court finds that it was untrue. His

case is, therefore, DISMISSED. Lee’s failure to respond to the Court’s show-cause Order and his failure to comply with the Local Rules’ requirement to keep his address current provide independently sufficient grounds to dismiss this case. A district court retains the inherent power to police its docket and to

enforce its orders. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.,

(1962); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op,

, 102 (11th Cir.

1989); Jones v. Graham,

(11th Cir. 1983); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dept.,

(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). Lee’s apparent disregard of his

various obligations warrant dismissal. Accordingly, Lee’s Complaint is DISMISSED because his allegation of poverty was untrue and he failed to obey a court order and failed to prosecute his case. Doc. 1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED

to CLOSE this case. SO ORDERED, this 31st day of January, 20238.

ie L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA