JONES v. JONES et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
JAMES DEON JONES, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : No. 5:25-cv-00471-TES-CHW
:
LALA D. JONES, et al., :
:
Defendants. :
DISMISSAL ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff James Deon Jones, a prisoner at Baldwin State Prison in Hardwick,
Georgia, filed a complaint. ECF No. 1. On November 12, 2025, the Magistrate Judge
conducted an initial review of Plaintiff’s pleading and rightfully found that it was unclear
whether Plaintiff intended for his lawsuit to be a federal habeas corpus action under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 or whether he intended to pursue a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C §
1983. See ECF No. 5. Hence, Plaintiff was ordered to recast his complaint as either a
civil rights complaint or as a habeas action and was provided instructions on how to do
so. Id. Plaintiff was further ordered to provide a certified account statement for the
preceding six months in support of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. Plaintiff
was given fourteen (14) days to comply with the Court’s Order and was informed that
failure to fully and timely comply with an Order of the Court could result in dismissal of
this action. Id. Plaintiff did not respond.
Therefore, on December 18, 2025, the Court notified Plaintiff that he failed to
Case 5:25-cv-00471-TES-CHW Document 7 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 2

2
comply with an Order of the Court. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was ordered to show cause
why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s Order.
Id. The Court again informed Plaintiff that should he fail to respond or otherwise
comply with Court orders, this civil action can be dismissed. Id. Plaintiff was given
fourteen (14) days to comply. Plaintiff has failed to respond.
Due to Plaintiff’s failure to follow the Court’s orders and failure to prosecute this
action, the case is hereby 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) (first citing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 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.”); Duong Thanh Ho v. Costello, 757 F. App'x
912 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sua sponte
dismissing without prejudice prisoner's pro se § 1983 complaint for failure to comply with
court order to file amended complaint where order expressly informed prisoner of
deficiencies in his complaint and rules that he needed to follow in filing amended
complaint). Due to the dismissal of this civil action, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 2) and motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 3) are DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED, this 15th day of January, 2026.
S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 5:25-cv-00471-TES-CHW Document 7 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 2