MASON v. CARTER I

United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia

MASON v. CARTER I

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ALBANY DIVISION

HAROLD MASON, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 1:24-CV-123 (LAG) : ROOSEVELT CARTER I, CARTER : FARMS, and FLINT RIVER : CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC., : : Defendants. : : ORDER Plaintiff filed a Complaint and a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the above captioned matter on August 20, 2024. (Docs. 1, 2). On February 11, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff was given thirty days to file an amended complaint and was advised that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of this action. (Id. at 6). More than thirty days have passed since the entry of the Order and Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint. (See Docket). Pro se pleadings are construed liberally and held to “less stringent standards” than “formal pleadings that lawyers draft.” Bilal v. Geo Care, LLC,

981 F.3d 903, 911

(11th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). But “once a pro se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis is in court,” he must follow “the relevant law and rules of court[.]” Shuler v. Okeechobee CI Warden,

815 F. App’x 457

, 458 (11th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (citing Moon v. Newsome,

863 F.2d 835, 837

(11th Cir. 1989)). District courts have inherent authority and authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) “to dismiss sua sponte a civil action for failure to prosecute” or “failure to comply” with a Court order. Lasswell Found. for Learning & Laughter, Inc. v. Schwartz,

834 F. App’x 493

, 494 (11th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (citing Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada,

432 F.3d 1333, 1337

(11th Cir. 2005)); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t,

205 F. App’x 802, 802

(11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). The inherent power to dismiss “is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

370 U.S. 626

, 629–30 (1962). Accordingly, because Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of April, 2025.

/s/ Leslie A. Gardner LESLIE A. GARDNER, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Reference

Status
Unknown