Muldrow v. Page et al
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL ORDERING that action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and FURTHER ORDERED that all motions pending are hereby Denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Caroline Craven on 8/16/2016. (sm, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
ELBERT MULDROW
§
v.
§
WARDEN BOB PAGE, ET AL.
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15cv167
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The Plaintiff Elbert Muldrow, a former inmate of the Bowie County Correctional Center
proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged
violations of his constitutional rights. The parties have consented to allow the undersigned United
States Magistrate Judge to enter final judgment in the proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c).
Copies of the order of reference to the Magistrate Judge and an order denying injunctive
relief were sent to Muldrow at his last known address but were returned to the Court as
undeliverable. The lawsuit form filed by Muldrow contains a declaration stating “I understand if
I am released or transferred, it is my responsibility to keep the Court informed of my current mailing
address and failure to do so may result in the dismissal of the lawsuit.” (Docket no. 1, p. 4). The
order granting in forma pauperis status, of which Muldrow received a copy on December 15, 2015,
contains a paragraph stating “the Plaintiff shall notify the Court of any changes of address by filing
a written notice of change of address with the Clerk. Failure to file such notice may result in the case
being dismissed for want of prosecution.” (Docket no. 8, p. 2).
A district court may dismiss an action for failure of a litigant 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). Such a dismissal may be done sua sponte and appellate review is confined to whether the
district court abused its discretion in dismissing the action. Id., citing Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.,
370 U.S. 626, 630-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962).
1
Muldrow’s failure to notify the Court of his mailing address or current whereabouts is not
an action which threatens the judicial process, rendering dismissal with prejudice unwarranted. The
. imposition of fines and costs is not appropriate given the status and nature of this case. The
incidents forming the basis of the complaint began in October of 2015, giving Muldrow ample time
in which to refile his lawsuit, should he choose to do so, within the two-year limitations period.
Upon consideration of all relevant factors, the Court has determined the interests of justice are best
served by a dismissal of this lawsuit without prejudice, and it is therefore
ORDERED the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). It is further
ORDERED any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby
DENIED.
SIGNED this 16th day of August, 2016.
____________________________________
CAROLINE M. CRAVEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
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?