Moore v. Hall et al, No. 2:2020cv00055 - Document 19 (N.D. Tex. 2023)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PAYMENT OF THE BALANCE OF THE FILING FEE OR A NEW APPLICATION (Ordered by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk on 3/21/2023) (nht)

Download PDF

Moore v. Hall et al Doc. 19 Case 2:20-cv-00055-Z-BR Document 19 Filed 03/21/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 101 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXA AMARILLO DIVISION RALPH EDWARD MOORE, TDCJ-CID No. 01042302 U.S. DJSTRTCT COURT Norm IERN OJSTR!CT OF TEXAS I FILED MAR2 1 2023 I CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT By-m.;r-:;m::::::::::---- Plaintiff, 2:20-CV-055-Z-BR V. JEFFERY HALL, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CML RIGHTS COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PAYMENT OF THE BALANCE OF THE FILING FEE OR A NEW APPLICATION At the time this action was filed, Plaintiff was a prisoner confined at the Allred Unit located in Iowa Park, Texas. However, Plaintiff has notified the Court of a change of address to a private address in Houston, Texas. ECF No. 16. Plaintiff was ordered to pay an initial partial filing fee and was notified he would be responsible for the remainder of the full $350.00 filing fee. ECF No. 12 at 1-2. While incarcerated, Plaintiff paid- from his inmate trust account - the initial partial filing fee of $16.834 on December 14, 2021. On January 12, 2022, one $20.00 payment was made before Plaintiff was released from custody. Plaintiff remains responsible for payment of the balance of the $350.00 filing fee - $313 .17. Since Plaintiff has been released from prison, his ability to proceed in forma pauperis is now governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(l). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00055-Z-BR Document 19 Filed 03/21/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 102 Cir. 1998). "This authority [under Rule 41 (b)] flows from the court's inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases." Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., 756 F.2d 399,401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Linkv. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626,629 (1962)). As of this date, Plaintiff has neither paid the balance of the filing fee ($313 .1 7) nor applied to proceed informa pauperis following his release despite being out of custody for approximately one year. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to diligently prosecute this case. Therefore, this case should be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(b). However, if Plaintiff moves to reopen this case within thirty (30) days of this Order, along with either the full remaining balance of the filing fee or a properly completed and accurate post-release in forma pauperis application, the Court will reopen these proceedings. CONCLUSION The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice to reopening upon payment of the remaining balance of the filing fee or a renewal by Plaintiff of a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with all current income and assets accounted for in the application. SO ORDERED. March ,d, 2023 MA HEW J. KACSMARYK 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.