Cage v. Louisiana State Penitentiary

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA PERCY CAGE (#131655) CIVIL ACTION VERSUS LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY, NO. 23-01462-BAJ-RLB ET AL.

ORDER On October 5, 2023, Plaintiff, an incarcerated person then confined at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, filed a pro se Complaint (Doc. 1), and later an Amended Complaint, alleging a violation of his constitutional rights. (Doc. 3). Plaintiff submitted a Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 4), which the Court granted on April 16, 2024. (Doc. 5). In this Order, the Court directed Plaintiff to pay the initial partial filing fee within twenty-one days or risk dismissal of his suit. (/d.). On June 11, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show good cause as to why the above- captioned matter should not be dismissed for failure to pay the initial partial filing fee. (Doc. 6). The Court additionally ordered Plaintiff to provide copies of certain inmate account statements. Ud.). Plaintiff ultimately did not file a timely response, nor did he furnish the required inmate account statements. Though filed late, Plaintiff provided a 21-page Response broadly alleging poor incarceration conditions. (Doc. 7). Liberally construed, Plaintiffs primary justification for not paying the initial partial filing fee is that Saundra Rosso, the mother of Defendant William Russo, has led a conspiratorial effort to prevent incarcerated individuals from filing suit against her son and other corrections officials by embezzling commissary funds. (/d. at 18— 19).

The record reflects that, to date, Plaintiff has failed to pay the initial partial filing fee. Having not provided the Court-ordered copies of Plaintiffs inmate account statements, Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for failure to pay the initial partial filing fee.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the Court to dismiss a claim for failure of prosecution on its own motion, with or without notice to the parties.

Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Lid., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985). This inherent power derives from the Court’s necessarily vested control to “manage [its] own docket and achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). As a practical matter, the case cannot proceed without Plaintiffs continued participation, particularly at the foundational stage of addressing the Court’s filing fee.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiffs claims be and are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiffs failure to prosecute the case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, should Plaintiff provide the Court with good cause for the above within thirty (30) days, the Court may consider reinstatement of Plaintiffs claims.

Judgment shall be entered separately. . Baton Rouge, Louisiana, ml TOR of February, 2025 D2. et UNITED STATES DI ICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA