Dowden v. Kelly et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. 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. For this reason, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. Signed by Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin on 7/20/15. (mrp, )

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

§

VS.

§

LIEUTENANT KELLY

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14cv469

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Aaron Dowden, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled civil
rights lawsuit.1
Discussion
The court previously entered an order directing plaintiff to
pay an initial partial filing fee.

A copy of the order was sent to

plaintiff at the Holliday Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, the address provided
to the court by plaintiff.

The copy of the order sent to plaintiff

was returned to the court with a notation indicating plaintiff was
no longer at the address provided.

Plaintiff has not provided the

court with a new address.

1

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, the
defendants’ 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).

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

confined

solely

in

whether

the

court's

discretion was abused.

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.

He has therefore failed to

This matter should therefore be

dismissed.
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 120 days of the date set forth below.
Hello This is a Test
SIGNED this

20

July

day of

, 2015.

KEITH F. GIBLIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3