Coleman v. Sweetin et al
Filing
89
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Defendants' motion to dismiss for want of prosecution 88 is GRANTED. A final judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 2/2/15. (ljw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
FREDDIE R. COLEMAN
§
VS.
§
DEBBIE ERWIN, ET AL.
§
CIVIL ACTION NO.
9:10-CV-135
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Freddie R. Coleman, a former prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
brings this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On May 6, 2011, pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case was referred to a
magistrate judge for all further proceedings and entry of judgment. The case was reassigned to the
undersigned magistrate judge on April 16, 2014.
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed this case while he was a prisoner at the Eastham Unit of the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division. The defendants answered the complaint, and
the case was proceeding toward a trial.
On January 20, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the action for want of prosecution.
The defendants note that the plaintiff has made no effort to prosecute this case since 2012. Plaintiff
was released from prison, but he did not provide the court with his new address. The defendants had
notice that his most recent mailing address was the “Patriot House” in Fort Worth, Texas. On
January 5, 2015, legal mail sent to the plaintiff at that address was returned to the defendants with
a notation that it was undeliverable.
Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action sua
sponte for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031
(5th Cir. 1998). “The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays
in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.”
Link v. Wabash Railroad, 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th
Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff has shown no interest in prosecuting this case since 2012. By failing to update his
address, plaintiff has neglected to prosecute this case diligently. Accordingly, this action should be
dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The statute of limitations has expired. Therefore, the dismissal would be with prejudice to
plaintiff’s ability to refile the case. Dismissal with prejudice for failing to prosecute or to obey an
order of the court is an extreme sanction that should be employed only when the plaintiff’s conduct
threatens the integrity of the judicial process in a way that leaves the court no choice but to deny the
plaintiff its benefit. McNeal v. Papasan, 842 F.2d 787, 790 (5th Cir. 1988), citing Rogers v. Kroger
Co., 669 F.2d 317, 321 (5th Cir. 1982). A court should consider lesser sanctions, such as fines,
costs, damages, conditional dismissals, and dismissals without prejudice, among other lesser
measures, prior to dismissing an action with prejudice. McNeal, 842 F.2d at 793.
The court has considered imposing lesser sanctions and found them inadequate to address
the current situation. Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the imposition of monetary
sanctions is almost certainly futile. Further, this case would remain suspended in limbo, unable to
proceed, so long as plaintiff fails to provide the court and the defendants with his current address.
2
Therefore, a dismissal with prejudice is the only appropriate sanction available in this instance. It
is accordingly
ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss for want of prosecution (document no. 88
is GRANTED. A final judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and
Order.
SIGNED this 2nd day of February, 2015.
_________________________
Zack Hawthorn
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?