Price v. Siri et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding plaintiff's claims. Signed by Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin on 12/29/2014. (bjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION

CHAVEZ PRICE

§

VS.

§

WARDEN SIRI

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14cv283

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Chavez Price, an inmate at the Jester IV Unit of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division,

proceeding

pro

se,

filed

this

civil

rights

action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several prison officials.1
Procedural Background
On November 7, 2014, the court entered an order directing
plaintiff to submit a statement certified by an appropriate prison
official

showing

the

average

balance

in

and

deposits

into

plaintiff’s inmate trust account during the preceding six month
period.
order.

1

Plaintiff was given 20 days to comply with the court’s
Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the court’s order on

This case was directly assigned to the undersigned magistrate judge
pursuant to this district’s General Order 14-10. Plaintiff has provided
voluntary written consent to have the assigned magistrate judge conduct all
further proceedings in this case, including entry of final judgment, in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. The defendants in this action have not been
served with process and, as a result, have not appeared. As a result, their
consent is not needed for the undersigned to make a final determination in
this matter. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995).

November 19, 2014.

However, plaintiff has not complied with the

court’s order or otherwise contacted the court regarding this
matter.
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 order of the court.
1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998).

Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d

“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 cases.” Boudwin
v. Graystone Insurance Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir.
1985).
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 without prejudice for want of prosecution.
Conclusion
For

the

reasons

set

forth

above,

this

lawsuit

will

be

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b). An appropriate final judgment shall be entered.
If plaintiff wishes to have this case reinstated on the court’s
docket, he may do so by providing the court with a copy of the
statement described above within 60 days of the date set forth
2

below.
Hello This is a Test
SIGNED this

29

December

day of

, 2014.

KEITH F. GIBLIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3