CARMICHAEL v. HALL et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
JAMES TYRONE CARMICHAEL,
Plaintiff,
V.
WARDEN PHILIP HALL, et al.,
Defendants.
NO. 7:25-cv-00074-WLS-ALS
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff James Tyrone Carmichael, an inmate in Valdosta State Prison in Valdosta,
Georgia, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	ECF No. I. 	Thereafter,
Plaintiff was ordered to recast his complaint and either pay the $405.00 filing fee for his
complaint or submit a properly completed motion to proceed in Jonna pauperis. 	ECF
No. 3. Plaintiff was given fourteen days to comply and was cautioned that his failure to do
so may result in the dismissal of this case. Id. at 5,
More than fourteen days passed after that order was entered, during which Plaintiff
did not pay the filing fee, move for leave to proceed in Jonna pauperis, file a recast
complaint, or otherwise respond to the Court's order. 	As a result, Plaintiff was ordered to
show cause to the Court why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to
comply with the order to recast his complaint and either pay the filing fee or move for leave
to proceed in Jonna pauperis. 	ECF No. 4. 	Plaintiff was given fourteen days to respond
Case 7:25-cv-00074-WLS-ALS Document 7 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 3

and was cautioned that his failure to do so would likely result in the dismissal of this case.
Id.
After the order to show cause was entered, Plaintiff filed two letters to the Court.
ECF Nos. 5 & 6. The first asks why an order Plaintiff received said "James T. Carmichael
v. Philip Hall" instead of"James T. Carmichael v. Ralph Shropshire."' 	ECF No. 5. 	This
letter is in no way responsive to the order to recast and address the filing fee or to the order
to show cause. See id.
The second letter acknowledges the order to recast but does not follow any of the
instructions for recasting the complaint. 	See generally ECF No. 6. 	In the letter, Plaintiff
continues 	to 	make 	vague 	and 	sweeping 	generalized 	allegations 	of a 	long-running
conspiracy to harm him, and he asks the Court to investigate his claims. 2 Id. at 4. Plaintiff
does not provide any specific factual allegations to support his claims nor does he limit his
claims to those within the statute of limitations or to those that are properly joined under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20.3 Thus, Plaintiff has not complied with the order to recast his complaint.
1Although Ralph Shropshire was listed as the first defendant in the caption of Plaintiffs
complaint, ECF No. 1 at 1, Philip Hall was the first defendant listed in response to the
question asking Plaintiff to identify each defendant in the lawsuit. 	Id. at 8. 	Thus, Hall is
the first defendant listed on the docket sheet. Ralph Shropshire is also listed as a defendant
on the docket.
2
It is not the Court's role to investigate claims made by plaintiffs but to resolve cases or
controversies that are before the Court.
3 Plaintiff also includes claims that appear to be frivolous or outlandish. 	In particular,
Plaintiff alleges that "some officials are using telepathy mind control technology" on him.
ECF No. 6 at 4. 	He asks the Court to find out which officials are using this technology.
Id.
2
Case 7:25-cv-00074-WLS-ALS Document 7 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 3

Moreover, Plaintiff has not complied with the order to either pay the filing fee or
move for leave to proceed in Jonna pauper is, nor has he even addressed that portion of the
order. 	A prisoner seeking to initiate a case in this Court must either pay the filing fee for
his case or move for leave to proceed in Jonna pauper is. Plaintiff did not do either, and he
has not responded to the portion of the order to show cause requiring him to address the
filing fee issue.
Accordingly, the complaint is now DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
failure to comply with the Court's orders. 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. lndep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th
Cir. 1978)) ("The [C]ourt may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 4l(b) for failure to
prosecute or failure to obey a court order.").
SO ORDERED, this 	.Z~ 1,1.. 	day of January, 2026.
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
Case 7:25-cv-00074-WLS-ALS Document 7 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 3