Rouse v. Warren County Jail et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION (CINCINNATI)
XEZAKIA ROUSE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WARREN COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:26-cv-00190
District Judge Susan J. Dlott
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 15).
For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this
action be DISMISSED without prejudice.
On August 18, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by no later
than September 17, 2026 that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Order, Doc.
No. 22). The Court ordered Plaintiff to comply with Rule 8(a), which requires a complaint to
contain a “short and plain statement of the claim.” The Court also ordered Plaintiff to comply
with Rules 18 and 20, which do not permit plaintiffs to assert unrelated claims against unrelated
Defendants in one lawsuit. Finally, the Court ordered Plaintiff to assert only claims that have a
nexus to the imminent danger recognized by this Court. (Id.) The Court reminded Plaintiff that
he must keep this Court informed of his current address while this case is pending and promptly
file a Notice of New Address should he be released or transferred. (Doc. No. 22, at 378-79).
The September 17, 2026 deadline has now passed, and Plaintiff has failed to comply with
this Court’s Order (Doc. No. 22) to file an amended complaint. Additionally, on August 31,
Case: 1:26-cv-00190-SJD-CHG Doc #: 32 Filed: 10/15/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
2026, mail sent to Plaintiff was returned to the Court as undeliverable. (Doc. No. 26). The Court
issued a second Order requiring Plaintiff to update his address on September 2, 2026 (Doc. No.
27) but Plaintiff did not do so. All documents that this Court has subsequently mailed to Plaintiff
have been returned as undeliverable. (Doc. Nos. 28, 29, 30, 31).
“Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) recognizes the power of the district court to enter a sua sponte
order of dismissal.” Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) (citing Link v. Wabash
R.Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); Carter v. Memphis, 636 F.2d 159, 161 (6th Cir. 1980)). This
authority is considered an “inherent power” necessary for “courts to manage their affairs so as to
achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link, 370 U.S. at 630-31. Failure of a
party to respond to an order of the Court warrants invocation of the Court’s inherent power. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Here, this case should be dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff did
not comply with the Court’s Orders to file an amended complaint and update his address.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. 	This matter be DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. 	With respect to any application by Plaintiff to proceed on appeal in forma
pauperis, the Court should certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of any Order
adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in “good faith,” and therefore
DENY Petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis upon a showing of financial necessity. See
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 1997).
October 15, 2026 	/s/ Caroline H. Gentry
CAROLINE H. GENTRY
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 1:26-cv-00190-SJD-CHG Doc #: 32 Filed: 10/15/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served
with a copy of recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to
the proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the court
on a timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report
objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A
party may respond to another party’s objections WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being
served with a copy of the objections. The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to
the Report and Recommendation in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal.
See Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019). See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Case: 1:26-cv-00190-SJD-CHG Doc #: 32 Filed: 10/15/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>