Riley v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice et al

Filing 47

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Rileys claims against Becerra are DISMISSEDWITH PREJUDICE.. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (afd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
RANDA L. RILEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, ELLEN HALBERT SUBSTANCE
ABUSE FELONY PUNISHMENT
FACILITY, GATEWAY FOUNDATIONTEXAS, JOHN BECERRA, SHANNON
HUGGINS, BETH MORRIS, and BRYAN
COLLIER,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

1:17-CV-1031-RP

ORDER
On February 19, 2019, the Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff Randa L. Riley’s (“Riley”)
claims against Defendants Huggins (“Huggins”) and Gateway Foundation-Texas (“Gateway”) for
want of prosecution and for failure to comply with multiple Court orders. (Dkt. 42, at 2–3). That
same day, the Court also ordered Riley to show cause as to why her claims against Defendant John
Becerra (“Becerra”) should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. (Dkt. 43). Riley had until
March 22, 2019, to respond. (Id. at 2). She has failed to do so.
Federal courts have the authority to dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute. Link v.
Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (permitting a court to dismiss an
action if the plaintiff “fails to prosecute or to comply with . . . a court order”). Dismissal with
prejudice is appropriate if there is a “clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff”
and if “lesser sanctions would not serve the best interests of justice.” Callip v. Harris Cty. Child Welfare
Dep’t, 757 F.2d 1513, 1519 (5th Cir. 1985) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A

1

district court may dismiss sua sponte, with or without notice to the parties.” Rogers v. Kroger Co., 669
F.2d 317, 319 (5th Cir. 1982).
As stated in the Court’s prior order dismissing Riley’s claims against Huggins and Gateway,
this action has been pending for over a year. Riley has failed throughout this time to participate in
discovery. She twice violated Court orders to respond to Huggins’s and Gateway’s discovery
requests and was twice warned that this case would be dismissed if she continued to fail to comply
with the Court’s orders to participate in discovery. Now, Riley has again failed to comply with the
Court’s show cause order despite a warning that her claims against Becerra would be dismissed if she
did not respond to the order. Therefore, as before, the Court finds that there is a clear record of
delay that justifies dismissing Riley’s claims with prejudice for want of prosecution.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Riley’s claims against Becerra are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall mail a copy of this Order to
Riley via certified mail. Riley’s last known physical address is 8103 Clarion Way, Houston, Texas
77040.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall mail a copy of this Order to
Becerra via certified mail. Becerra’s physical address is 210 Stoneham Ln, Killeen, Texas, 76542.
SIGNED on March 25, 2019.

_____________________________________
ROBERT PITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2