McNary v. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles
Filing
40
MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding plaintiff's claims. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 4/21/2016. (bjc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
JOSEPH L. MCNARY
§
VS.
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08cv496
TEX. BD. OF PARDONS AND PAROLES §
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Joseph L. McNary, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled
lawsuit.
Discussion
The court previously entered an order directing plaintiff to
provide more information concerning his case.
A copy of the order
was sent to plaintiff at 14348 FM 968 W. Lot 18, Longview, Texas
75602, the address provided to the court by plaintiff.
the
order
sent
to
plaintiff
was
returned
to
The copy of
the
court
as
undeliverable, indicating plaintiff is no longer at the address
provided. Plaintiff has not provided the court with a new address.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district
court to dismiss an action for want of prosecution sua sponte
whenever
necessary
to
disposition of cases.
achieve
the
orderly
835
F.2d
expeditious
Anthony v. Marion County General Hospital,
617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980).
Lynaugh,
and
1126
(5th
Cir.
See also McCullough v.
1988).
The
orderly
and
expeditious disposition of cases requires that if a litigant's
address changes, he has a duty to inform the court of the change.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has said
It is neither feasible nor legally required that the clerks
of the district courts undertake independently to maintain
current addresses on all parties to pending actions. It is
incumbent upon litigants to inform the court of address
changes, for it is manifest that communications between the
clerk and the parties or their counsel will be conducted
principally by mail. In addition to keeping the clerk informed of any change of address, parties are obliged to make
timely status inquiries. Address changes normally would be
reflected by those inquiries if made in writing.
Shannon v. State of Louisiana, 1988 WL 54768, No. 87-3951 (E.D. La.
May 23, 1988) (quoting Perkins v. King, No. 84-3310 (5th Cir. May
19, 1985)); see also Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988)
(per curiam) (pro se plaintiff's case dismissed for failure to
prosecute when he failed to keep the court apprised of his current
address).
The exercise of the power to dismiss for failure to
prosecute is committed to the sound discretion of the court and
appellate
review
is
discretion was abused.
confined
solely
in
whether
the
court's
Green v. Forney Engineering Co., 589 F.2d
243 (5th Cir. 1979); Lopez v. Aransas County Independent School
District, 570 F.2d 541 (5th Cir. 1978).
By failing to provide the court with a correct address,
plaintiff has prevented the court from communicating with him and
moving this case towards resolution.
diligently prosecute this case.
dismissed.
He has therefore failed to
This matter should therefore be
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, this matter will be dismissed
without prejudice for want of prosecution.
be
entered
in
accordance
with
this
A final judgment shall
memorandum
opinion.
If
plaintiff wishes to have this case reinstated on the court's active
docket, he may do so by providing the court with a current address
within 60 days of the date set forth below.
SIGNED this the 21 day of April, 2016.
____________________________
Thad Heartfield
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?