Opinion
3:21-CV-714-S-BH
08-12-2022
SCOTT T. BEHLING, # 664060, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH CRISSUP, Defendant.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
By Special Order No. 3-251 , this pro se prisoner case has been automatically referred for full case management.
Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge
Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the case should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute or follow court orders.
I. BACKGROUND
After the pro se prisoner plaintiff attempted to add seemingly unrelated claims against the defendant in another lawsuit against different defendants, the claims against the defendant were severed and opened in this lawsuit on March 23, 2021. (See docs. 3, 4.) After he paid the filing fee for this case and filed an amended complaint, on August 10, 2021, he was sent a questionnaire to obtain more information about his claims. (See doc. 15.) The questionnaire specifically advised the plaintiff that his answers to the questionnaire were due within thirty days, and that a failure to file his answers could result in the dismissal of his case. Id. He failed to file his answers, and on November 29, 2021, he was again sent a questionnaire to obtain more information about his claims. (See doc. 18.) The questionnaire again specifically advised that answers were due within thirty days, and that a failure to file his answers could result in the dismissal of his case. Id. Well more than thirty days from the date of the second questionnaire have passed, but the plaintiff has not filed his answers to either questionnaire, or anything else in this case.
II. INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (§ 1983 prisoner action). This authority flows from a court's inherent power to control its docket, prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases, and avoid congested court calendars. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). The plaintiff twice failed to comply with orders that he provide questionnaire answers despite warnings that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the case. He has not filed anything else in the case. Because the plaintiff failed to follow a court order or otherwise show that he intends to proceed with this case, it should be dismissed.
III. RECOMMENDATION
This case should be dismissed without prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute or follow court orders, unless the plaintiff files his answers to the questionnaire within the time for objecting to this recommendation, or by some other deadline set by the court.
SO RECOMMENDED.