Moreno v. USA
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. In the present case, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the court's order in order to proceed on the case. His intentions and actions do not threaten the judicial process and a dismissal without prejudice is a ppropriate. Plaintiff may file a new complaint in the event he decides to pursue the claims. It is thus ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. All motions not previously ruled upon are DENIED. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 7/22/2015. (kls, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JORGE MANUEL TOVAR MORENO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14cv564
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jorge Manuel Tovar Morena filed the above-styled and numbered complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. On August 28, 2014, the court ordered Plaintiff to pay the $400 filing
fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. As of this date, he has failed to comply
with the court’s ordered.
A district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with any order
of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
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 as to whether the court abused its discretion.
Green v. Forney Eng’g Co., 589 F.2d 243, 247 (5th Cir. 1979); Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch.
Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978). Not only may a district court dismiss for want of
prosecution upon motion of a defendant, but it may also, sua sponte, dismiss an action whenever
necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Anthony v. Marion Cnty. Gen.
Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980).
The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly held that dismissal with prejudice for failure to obey an order
or failure to prosecute is an extreme sanction that should be employed only when the plaintiff's
conduct has threatened the integrity of the judicial process in such a way that leaves the court no
choice but to deny the plaintiff benefits. McNeal v. Papasan, 842 F.2d 787, 790 (5th Cir. 1988).
A court should consider lesser sanctions, such as fines, costs, damages, conditional dismissals and
dismissals without prejudice, among other lesser measures prior to dismissing a case with prejudice.
Id. at 793. The explanation for employing a dismissal with prejudice should be stated on the record.
In the present case, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the court's order in order to proceed
on the case. His intentions and actions do not threaten the judicial process and a dismissal without
prejudice is appropriate. Plaintiff may file a new complaint in the event he decides to pursue the
claims. It is thus
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. All motions not
previously ruled upon are DENIED.
SIGNED this 22nd day of July, 2015.
AMOS L. MAZZANT
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?