Holmes v. Southern Correctional Medicine
6:17-cv-00118
S.D. Ga.May 3, 2018Background
- Scott Holmes, proceeding pro se, filed a Section 1983 complaint on September 13, 2017, related to conditions at Tattnall County Jail.
- The Court granted in forma pauperis status and ordered Holmes to notify the Court of any address change and to comply with additional directives by April 9, 2018.
- The Court’s March 9, 2018 order was returned by the jail with the notation “Inmate no longer here,” and Holmes did not update his address or otherwise respond.
- Holmes has taken no action in the case since filing the complaint; the Court cannot communicate with him and cannot effect service or proceed.
- The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to follow a court order, and also recommends denying leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
- The Report and Recommendation gives Holmes 14 days to file specific written objections or to amend the complaint to cure deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute and follow court orders | Holmes did not present arguments in response to the Court’s order (no contact) | Defendants implicitly argue dismissal appropriate due to lack of prosecution and inability to serve/communicate | Dismissal without prejudice is recommended for failure to prosecute and to follow court orders |
| Whether dismissal should be with prejudice as a sanction | N/A (no response or justification provided) | N/A (court assesses sanction appropriateness) | Dismissal without prejudice (less severe sanction) is appropriate; dismissal with prejudice not warranted absent clear record of willful delay and finding lesser sanctions insufficient |
| Whether the magistrate’s Report provides fair notice before sua sponte dismissal | N/A (no objections filed) | Court asserts R&R gives fair notice and opportunity to respond | Report and Recommendation constitutes fair notice; 14-day objection period provided |
| Whether leave to appeal in forma pauperis should be denied | N/A (no appeal filed or arguments made) | Court contends no non-frivolous issue exists to support good-faith appeal | Court recommends denying in forma pauperis status on appeal because any appeal would not be taken in good faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (trial court may dismiss for failure to prosecute and manage docket even without prior notice)
- Morewitz v. West of England Ship Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass’n (Lux.), 62 F.3d 1356 (11th Cir. 1995) (dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute is an extreme sanction requiring clear record of delay and that lesser sanctions would not suffice)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (defines frivolous claims and standards for dismissal of meritless suits)
- Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528 (11th Cir. 2002) (in forma pauperis action is frivolous if without arguable merit in law or fact)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (good faith standard for proceeding in forma pauperis on appeal)