Opinion
CV422-080
07-28-2022
NASH N. TUTEN, Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF JOHN WILCHER, and TONY FREESEMAN, Defendants.
ORDER
CHRISTOPHER L. RAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
The Court previously directed pro se plaintiff Nash N. Tuten to respond and show cause why this case should not be dismissed due to his failure to timely return the forms required to proceed in forma pauperis. See doc. 12. Tuten has responded, after a fashion. See doc. 13. As explained more fully below, Tuten's response to the Court's Order does not explain his failure to comply with basic procedural requirements. Instead, it attempts to argue the merits of his claims. Id. Because Tuten has, now repeatedly, shown his unwillingness to comply with procedural requirements or court orders, his case is DISMISSED.
The Court's prior Order noted that it had granted Tuten's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See doc. 12 at 1 (citing doc. 10). The Order granting him leave also directed him to return several forms. Id. Tuten's response suggests, but does not expressly assert, that issues with the prison's mail system might be responsible for his failure to timely comply with the Court's orders. See doc. 13 at 1. After that ambiguous reference, Tuten proceeds to discuss the dismissal of several state charges against him. He objects to a determination, apparently in another case he filed with this Court, that the State of Georgia and City of Savannah “cannot be sued.” Id.; see also id. at 4 (judgment entered in Tuten v. Belfiore, CV422-096 (S.D. Ga. July 7, 2022)). Other than the vague complaint about the mail, he does not even acknowledge the Court's direction to show cause. See generally doc. 13.
Tuten's filing does not establish any grounds to excuse, or even explain, his noncompliance with the Court's instructions. This is also not the first instance of Tuten's failure to abide by basic procedural requirements. The Honorable William T. Moore, Jr. recently noted, in dismissing another of Tuten's cases for procedural noncompliance, that Tuten has filed approximately seven complaints “in the last four months alone, many of which raise seemingly identical claims against the same defendants.” See Tuten v. City of Savannah, CV422-151, doc. 3 at 2 n. 1 (S.D. Ga. July 18, 2022). Judge Moore warned Tuten “that the Court will not hesitate to impose sanctions . . ., including filing restrictions, if it believes such action is necessary to protect against the time-consuming task of dealing with abusive filings.” Id. The undersigned finds, as Judge Moore did, “that Plaintiff has shown an unwillingness to comply with the orders of this Court and therefore, that dismissal is warranted.” Id. at 2 (citing Aitken v. Florida, 2022 WL 447577, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2022)).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute this action and failure to obey court orders. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case.
SO ORDERED.