Keigler v. Chevron Corporation

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS. (Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
COREY KEIGLER,
Plaintiff,
VS.
CHEVRON CORPORATION,
Defendant.

ENTERED
July 09, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-358
§
§
§
§

MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Corey Keigler alleges that he was terminated from his employment by the
Chevron Corporation because he is black, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. A pretrial conference was held on February 2, 2018, at which an attorney from
Louisiana, Hilliard Fazande, appeared by telephone claiming to represent Plaintiff.
However, Fazande never filed a motion to appear pro hac vice and never served
Defendant, despite being given additional time to do so. A second pretrial conference
was scheduled for April 6, 2018, but neither Plaintiff nor his attorney appeared. A check
of the Louisiana Bar Association's website reveals that Fazande has been suspended from
the practice of law since 2017. The only activity that has occurred in the case is
Plaintiff's payment of $300.00 toward the filing fee.
An order to show cause why Plaintiff's case should not be dismissed for want of
prosecution was filed and sent to Plaintiff on April 6, 2018, and an amended order to
show cause was filed and sent on April 20, 2018 (D.E. 7, 8). Plaintiff sent the Court
notice of a change of address on May 1, 2018, and the order to show cause was re-sent to
the updated address on May 22, 2018 (D.E. 9, 10). Notification that Plaintiff received the
1/2

order to show cause was received by the Court on June 4, 2018 (D.E. 11). To date,
Plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause and it appears that he has
abandoned his claim.
DISCUSSION
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides the following:
(b) Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply
with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or
any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under
this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule—except for one for lack
of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19—operates
as an adjudication on the merits.
A court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute. Martinez v. Johnson,
104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997). "'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 [d]istrict [c]ourts.'" Id. (quoting Link v. Wabash Railroad, 370
U.S. 626, 630-31). "A dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction that deprives the
petitioner of the opportunity to pursue his claim further." Curtis v. Quarterman, 340 Fed.
Appx. 217, 218 (5th Cir. 2009). Therefore, district courts have limited discretion to
dismiss a claim with prejudice. Id.
Plaintiff in this case has failed to comply with the order to show cause. He has not
responded in any way and appears to have abandoned his claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
ORDERED this 9th day of July, 2018.
___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2/2