Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Jan. 26, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

James Adam Hawkins v. Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, et al.

District Court, M.D. Georgia

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 5:25-cv-00298

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (8)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

MACON DIVISION

JAMES ADAM HAWKINS, :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : Case No. 5:25-cv-298-MTT-ALS

:

GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF :

PARDONS AND PAROLES, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

________________________________ :

                    ORDER                                        

Pending before the Court is a pro se pleading filed by Plaintiff James Adam
Hawkins, a prisoner in the Macon State Prison in Oglethorpe, Georgia, that has been
docketed as a Complaint seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). On
October 28, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to recast his Complaint on the appropriate
form and either pay the appropriate filing fee or file a complete and proper motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to comply, and he
was warned that the failure to fully and timely comply with the Court’s orders and
instructions could result in the dismissal of this case. See generally ECF No. 3.

The time for compliance expired without a response from Plaintiff. As such, the
Court ordered Plaintiff to respond and show cause why this case should not be dismissed
for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the orders and instructions of the Court. Plaintiff was
again given fourteen (14) days to respond, and he was also instructed to either pay the filing
fee (or submit a proper and complete motion to proceed in forma pauperis) and recast his
Complaint on the Court’s standard form if he wished to proceed with this case. He was
also warned again that the failure to fully and timely comply with the Court’s orders and

instructions could result in the dismissal of this case. See generally ECF No. 4.
The time for compliance has again expired without a response from Plaintiff. A
district court has authority to manage its docket to expeditiously resolve cases, and this
authority includes the power to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or failure to comply
with the court’s orders. Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv.,
Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240-41 (11th Cir. 2009) (first citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., [501

U.S. 32, 43](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/112616/chambers-v-nasco-inc/#43) (1991); and then citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)) (finding court did not err in
dismissing the third amended complaint for failure to follow the court’s instructions
regarding how to amend the complaint). Dismissal without prejudice is generally
appropriate pursuant to Rule 41(b) where a plaintiff has failed to comply with a court order,
“especially where the litigant has been forewarned.” Owens v. Pinellas Cnty. Sheriff’s

Dep’t, 331 F. App’x 654, 656 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835,
837 (11th Cir. 1989)) (upholding dismissal without prejudice of pro se prisoner’s complaint
for failure to follow court’s instructions). This action is therefore DISMISSED without
prejudice because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s October 28, 2025 Order.1

1 There is a chance that the applicable statute of limitations has run or is about to run on at least some of
Plaintiff’s claims. “[W]here a dismissal without prejudice has the effect of precluding the plaintiff from re-
filing his claim due to the running of the statute of limitations, it is tantamount to a dismissal with
prejudice.” Stephenson v. Doe, 554 F. App’x 835, 837 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Justice v. United States, 6
F.3d 1474, 1482 n.15 (11th Cir. 1993)). If this dismissal is effectively with prejudice, dismissal is
nonetheless appropriate because “a clear record of delay or willful misconduct exists, and . . . lesser
sanctions are inadequate to correct such conduct.” Stephenson, 554 F. App’x at 837 (citations omitted).

The Court ordered plaintiff to comply with its orders and instructions on more than one occasion and
specifically warned Plaintiff each time that failure to comply would result in dismissal of this action. Thus,
SO ORDERED, this 26th day of January, 2026.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell

MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

even though this dismissal is intended to be without prejudice, dismissal with prejudice would also be
appropriate. See Hickman v. Hickman, 563 F. App’x 742, 744 (11th Cir. 2014) (upholding sua sponte
dismissal with prejudice for failure to properly respond to the district court’s order); Eades v. Ala. Dep’t of
Human Res., 298 F. App’x 862, 864 (11th Cir. 2008) (same).