GASSEW v. JOHN DOE ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION JOHN GASSEW, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 5:20-cv-00285-TES-CHW JOHN DOE, Defendant. ORDER Plaintiff John Gassew, a prisoner in Thomson Penitentiary in Thomson, Illinois, filed a handwritten document, docketed as his pro se Complaint, seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. 1]. He did not, however, file his Complaint on the standard § 1983 complaint form designed for use by prisoner litigants. See [id.]. Moreover, Plaintiff did not either pay the Court’s $400.00 filing fee or move for leave to proceed in this action in forma pauperis. As a result, the United States Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to recast his Complaint on the proper form and either pay the $400.00 filing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. 6]. Plaintiff was given twenty-one days to comply with that Order [Doc. 6], and he was cautioned that his failure to fully and timely comply could result in the dismissal of his Complaint. [Id. at p. 4]. Thereafter, more than twenty-one days passed, and Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s Order. Thus, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to respond and show cause why his lawsuit should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s previous orders and instructions. See generally [Doc. 7]. Plaintiff was again given twenty- one days to file his response, and he was cautioned that his failure to do so would result in the Court dismissing this action. [Id.]. To date, more than twenty-one days have passed since the Magistrate Judge entered the Order to Show Cause [Doc. 7], and Plaintiff has not responded. Because Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to comply with previous orders and otherwise failed to diligently prosecute his claims, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (first citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and then citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”). As a result, the Court TERMINATES Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen All Cases [Doc. 4] and his Motion to Add Names to All Cases [Doc. 5] as moot. SO ORDERED, this 7th day of December, 2020. S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT