Huff v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding plaintiff's claims. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 12/23/09. (bjc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION STEVEN HUFF VS. BRAD LIVINGSTON § § § MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Steven Huff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Procedural Background On October 26, 2009, the court entered an order directing plaintiff to resubmit his claim using a court-approved form. Plaintiff was given 30 days to comply with the court's order. Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the court's order on November 2, 2009. However, plaintiff has not complied with the court's CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09cv409
order or otherwise contacted the court. Discussion Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with any court order. F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). Larson v. Scott, 157
"This authority [under Rule
41(b)] flows from the court's inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending
Boudwin v. Graystone Insurance Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399,
401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962)). By failing to comply with the order described above, plaintiff has failed to diligently prosecute this case. As a
result, this case will be dismissed for want of prosecution. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, this case will be dismissed for want of prosecution. If plaintiff wishes to have this case
reinstated on the court's docket, he may do so by complying with the court's order within 30 days of the date set forth below.
SIGNED this the 23 day of December, 2009.
____________________________ Thad Heartfield United States District Judge
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?