San Miguel, et al v. Miles, et al, No. 1:2003cv00286 - Document 80 (E.D. Tex. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION granting 79 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Thad Heartfield on 5/18/21. (tkd, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
San Miguel, et al v. Miles, et al Doc. 80 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION CARLOS JOSE PAGAN SAN MIGUEL § VS. § R.D. MILES § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:03cv286 MEMORANDUM OPINION Carlos Jose Pagan San Miguel, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled civil rights lawsuit. Discussion Pending before the court is a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants. The defendants state the case should be dismissed for want of prosecution because plaintiff has been released from prison and has not provided the court with a new address. The webite operated by the Bureau of Prisons confirms that plaintiff has been released. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action for want of prosecution sua sponte whenever necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Anthony v. Marion County General Hospital, 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980). See also McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126 (5th Cir. 1988). The orderly and expeditious disposition of cases requires that if a litigant's address changes, he has a duty to inform the court of the change. Shannon v. State of Louisiana, 1988 WL 54768, No. 87-3951 (E.D. La. May 23, 1988); see also Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (pro se plaintiff's case dismissed for failure to prosecute when he failed to keep the court apprised of his current address). 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 in whether the court's discretion was Dockets.Justia.com abused. Green v. Forney Engineering Co., 589 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1979); Lopez v. Aransas County Independent School District, 570 F.2d 541 (5th Cir. 1978). By failing to provide the court with a correct address, plaintiff has prevented the court from communicating with him. He has therefore failed to diligently prosecute this case. As a result, this matter will be dismissed. ORDER For the reasons set forth above, the motion to dismiss (doc. no. 79) is GRANTED. An appropriate final judgment shall be entered. SIGNED this the 18 day of May, 2021. ____________________________ Thad Heartfield United States District Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
