Mathis v. Grimes County Jail, No. 4:2022cv02608 - Document 11 (S.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Dismissing Case. Case terminated on 11/22/23.(Signed by Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(gclair, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Mathis v. Grimes County Jail Doc. 11 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CHRISTY ALLPHIN MATHIS, Plaintiff, vs. GRIMES COUNTY JAIL, Defendant. § § § § § § § § § November 23, 2022 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-22-2608 MEMORANDUM OPINION DISMISSING CASE Pretrial detainee Christy Allphin Mathis filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that officials at the Grimes County Jail violated her civil rights by being deliberately indifferent to her serious health condition. (Docket Entry No. 1). She also filed a motion to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. (Docket Entry No. 6). On September 15, 2022, the court granted Mathis leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and ordered that she could pay the filing fee by installments. (Docket Entry No. 9). The court assessed Mathis an initial partial filing fee of $10.00, which was due on or before October 15, 2022. (Id.). The court warned Mathis that failure to pay the initial partial filing fee and any subsequent installments as directed would result in a dismissal of this case without further notice under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.). In addition, on October 10, 2022, the court issued an order directing Mathis to file a more definite statement of her claims within 30 days of the date of the order. (Docket Entry No. 10). Mathis was again warned that failure to comply as directed would result in a dismissal of her case without further notice under Rule 41. (Id.). Dockets.Justia.com To date, Mathis has not complied with either order as directed, and her time to do so has expired. Mathis’s failure to pursue this action forces the court to conclude that she lacks due diligence. Dismissal for want of prosecution is appropriate. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998) (a district court may dismiss an action on its own for failure to prosecute or to comply with any court order). Mathis is advised that she may seek relief from this order under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if she can show good cause for failing to comply with the court’s orders and the local rules. Any motion under Rule 60(b) must be accompanied by the initial partial filing fee of $10.00 and a response to the court’s October 10, 2022, order. Mathis’s complaint, (Docket Entry No. 1), is dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. SIGNED on November 22, 2022, at Houston, Texas. _______________________________________ Lee H. Rosenthal Chief United States District Judge 2
]]>
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.
