Opinion
2:20-cv-1240
10-04-2023
CHRISTOPHER H. JOSEPH v. DARRYL VANNOY
SECTION P
JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KATHLEEN KAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Christopher H. Joseph, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this matter. This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of this court.
I.
Background
On November 17, 2021, the undersigned granted petitioner's request and ordered that this matter be stayed pending his attempt to exhaust state remedies. Doc. 19. Petitioner has been ordered to provide this Court with his progress in the state court proceedings on two occasions. See docs. 19 & 20. No status report has been filed.
II.
LAW AND APPLICATION
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(b) permits dismissal of claims “for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with ... any order of court...” The district court also has the inherent authority to dismiss an action sua sponte, without motion by a defendant. 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 [d]istrict [c]ourts.” McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir.1988). This power is “vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link, 370 U.S. at 630-31. Joseph has failed to comply with two Orders directing him to report the progress of his state court proceedings to this Court. This failure on his part warrants dismissal.
III.
Conclusion
Accordingly, It is recommended that Joseph's petition be Dismissed in accordance with the provisions of FRCP Rule 41(b).
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b), parties aggrieved by this recommendation have fourteen (14) business days from service of this report and recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may respond to another party's objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of any objections or response to the district judge at the time of filing.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the proposed legal conclusions reflected in this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days following the date of its service, or within the time frame authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. See, Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996).