Opinion
CIVIL 1:22-CV-00221
02-01-2023
CRAIG JOSEPH AUCOIN #505495, Plaintiff v. CATAHOULA CORRECTIONAL CENTER ET AL, Defendants
SEC P
DRELL, JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is a civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed by pro se Plaintiff Craig Joseph Aucoin (“Aucoin”). Aucoin is incarcerated at the Madison Parish Correctional Center (“MPCC”) in Tallulah, Louisiana. Aucoin complains about medical care and conditions at the Catahoula Correctional Center (“CCC”), where he was previously incarcerated.
Because Aucoin has failed to amend in accordance with the Court's Order, the Complaint (ECF No. 1) should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJDUCIE.
I. Background
Aucoin originally filed suit in the Monroe Division of this Court claiming that he was subjected to the denial of medical care at CCC and MPCC. See 3:21-cv-03686. The claims against the CCC Defendants were severed and transferred to this Division, while the claims against the MPCC Defendants are proceeding in the Monroe Division. Id. at ECF No. 14.
On September 21, 2022, Aucoin was ordered to amend his Complaint by October 21, 2022 to provide additional information regarding the transferred claims and to clarify the relief sought. ECF No. 24. Aucoin failed to comply. After the deadline had passed, Aucoin filed a Motion for Extension of Time within which to Comply with the Order. ECF No. 25. The Court granted the Motion, ordering Aucoin to amend by December 9, 2022. ECF No. 26. To date, Aucoin has failed to comply with the Order.
II. Law and Analysis
A district court may dismiss an action for the plaintiff's failure to prosecute or to comply with any order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). A court possesses the inherent authority to dismiss an action sua sponte. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). “The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” Id. at 629-30.
Aucoin has failed to comply with the Court's Order despite being afforded an extension of time within which to do so.
III. Conclusion
Because Aucoin has failed to comply with the Court's Order, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), a party may file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service, unless the Court grants an extension of time to file objections under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). A party may also respond to another party's objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service of those objections, again unless the Court grants an extension of time to file a response to objections.
No other briefs may be filed without leave of court, which will only be granted for good cause. A party's failure to timely file written objections to this Report and Recommendation will bar a party from later challenging factual or legal conclusions adopted by the District Judge, except if the challenge asserts “plain error.”