Dowden v. Kelly et al, No. 1:2014cv00469 - Document 11 (E.D. Tex. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. By failing to provide the court with a correct address, plaintiff has prevented the court from communicating with him and moving this case towards resolution. For this reason, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. Signed by Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin on 7/20/15. (mrp, )
Dowden v. Kelly et al Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION AARON DOWDEN § VS. § LIEUTENANT KELLY § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14cv469 MEMORANDUM OPINION Aaron Dowden, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled civil rights lawsuit.1 Discussion The court previously entered an order directing plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee. A copy of the order was sent to plaintiff at the Holliday Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, the address provided to the court by plaintiff. The copy of the order sent to plaintiff was returned to the court with a notation indicating plaintiff was no longer at the address provided. Plaintiff has not provided the court with a new address. 1 This case was directly assigned to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to this district’s General Order 14-10. Plaintiff has provided voluntary written consent to have the assigned magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case, including entry of final judgment, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. The defendants in this action have not been served with process and, as a result, have not appeared. As a result, the defendants’ consent is not needed for the undersigned to make a final determination in this matter. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995). Dockets.Justia.com Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action for want of prosecution sua sponte whenever necessary to disposition of cases. achieve the orderly 835 F.2d expeditious Anthony v. Marion County General Hospital, 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980). Lynaugh, and 1126 (5th Cir. See also McCullough v. 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. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has said It is neither feasible nor legally required that the clerks of the district courts undertake independently to maintain current addresses on all parties to pending actions. It is incumbent upon litigants to inform the court of address changes, for it is manifest that communications between the clerk and the parties or their counsel will be conducted principally by mail. In addition to keeping the clerk informed of any change of address, parties are obliged to make timely status inquiries. Address changes normally would be reflected by those inquiries if made in writing. Shannon v. State of Louisiana, 1988 WL 54768, No. 87-3951 (E.D. La. May 23, 1988) (quoting Perkins v. King, No. 84-3310 (5th Cir. May 19, 1985)); 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 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 and moving this case towards resolution. diligently prosecute this case. He has therefore failed to This matter should therefore be dismissed. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. be entered in accordance with this A final judgment shall memorandum opinion. If plaintiff wishes to have this case reinstated on the court's active docket, he may do so by providing the court with a current address within 120 days of the date set forth below. Hello This is a Test SIGNED this 20 July day of , 2015. KEITH F. GIBLIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3
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
Terms of Service