UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

JOHN ANTHONY DOYLE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV420-196 ) AMANDA KELLY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER The Court directed pro se plaintiff John Anthony Doyle 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. 10. 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. 11. It appears, therefore, that Doyle 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, Doyle’s initial application to proceed in forma pauperis disclosed a balance of $30.00 in his prisoner

trust account. See doc. 10 at 1; see also doc. 2 at 2. Subsequent financial disclosures indicated that Doyle’s trust account had an average monthly balance of $396.34 and average monthly deposits of $62.57. See doc. 10

at 2; see also doc. 7. An accounting of his prisoner trust account indicated that Doyle had more than $1,000.00 available during the period immediately prior to his filing the Complaint. Doc. 10 at 2; see also doc.

7 at 3. 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 Doyle 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.

Doyle’s failure to respond to the Court’s show-cause Order and his failure to comply with the Local Rules’ reuquirement 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). Doyle’s apparent disregard of his various obligations warrants dismissal. Accordingly, Doyle’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.

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