COUCH v. APPLING ITF, 2:19-cv-00100

Plaintiff Jeffrey Hoyt Couch filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and sought in forma pauperis (IFP) status; the Middle District of Georgia granted IFP and transferred the case to the Southern District of Georgia.
The Southern District conducted frivolity review, dismissed some claims (including claims against the Georgia Department of Corrections), and determined certain claims should be served.
Court orders and a Report & Recommendation were returned as undeliverable because Couch failed to update or maintain a valid mailing address.
On December 16, 2020 the Magistrate Judge ordered Couch to show cause within 14 days why his complaint should not be dismissed; that order also was returned undeliverable and Couch did not respond.
The Magistrate Judge concluded the court cannot communicate with Couch, Couch failed to comply with the court order, and recommended dismissal without prejudice and denial of IFP status for any appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to dismiss the complaint for failure to follow court orders/failure to prosecute	Couch did not respond to the show-cause order (no argument made)	Court cannot proceed because Couch failed to update address and did not respond	Recommend dismissal without prejudice for failure to follow court order/failure to prosecute
Whether dismissal should be with prejudice (sanction severity)	Couch made no submissions to oppose dismissal	Less severe sanction appropriate where record does not show extreme willful contempt	Dismissal without prejudice is appropriate (not a merits adjudication)
Whether to permit appeal IFP (certify appeal not in good faith)	Couch has not filed an appeal but would seek IFP status	No non-frivolous issues to raise; appeal would not be in good faith	Recommend denial of leave to appeal in forma pauperis

Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (trial court may dismiss for failure to prosecute, even without prior notice)
Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2005) (Rule 41(b) dismissal authority and standards)
Morewitz v. West of England Ship Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass'n (Lux.), 62 F.3d 1356 (11th Cir. 1995) (dismissal with prejudice reserved for extreme situations; lesser sanctions must be considered)
Coleman v. St. Lucie Cnty. Jail, [citation="433 F. App'x 716"] (11th Cir. 2011) (upholding dismissal for failure to prosecute where plaintiff failed to provide defendant's address)
Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep't, [citation="205 F. App'x 802"] (11th Cir. 2006) (district court's inherent authority to manage docket and dismiss cases)
Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189 (11th Cir. 1993) (Rule 41(b) dismissal for failure to comply with court orders)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (definition of frivolous claims for screening purposes)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (appeal IFP not allowed if appeal is not taken in good faith)
Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528 (11th Cir. 2002) (IFP actions are frivolous if without arguable merit in law or fact)