Opinion
Civil Action 6:19cv551 CRIM 6:18cr19
12-12-2022
ANTAEUS DIANDRE MOORE, #27757-078 v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
K. NICOLE MITCHELL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Movant Antaeus Diandre Moore, a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition of the case.
The docket in this reflects that Movant has not communicated with the Court since April 2020, (Dkt. #14). In fact, records within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) reveal that Movant was released from prison on April 14, 2021. Movant, however, failed to file an updated mailing address-which is required.
A litigant has an ongoing obligation and responsibility to inform the Court of his whereabouts through a current mailing address. This requirement is memorialized in the Eastern District of Texas Local Rule CV-11(d): “A pro se litigant must provide the court with a physical address (i.e., a post office box is not acceptable) and is responsible for keeping the clerk advised in writing of his or her current physical address.”
A district court may dismiss an action for the failure of a litigant to prosecute or to comply with any order of the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); see also McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (“The court possesses the inherent authority to dismiss the action sua sponte, without motion by a defendant.”). The district court has both specific and inherent power to control its own docket “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time.” See U.S. v Colomb, 419 F.3d 292, 299 (5th Cir. 2005); see also Miller v. Thaler, 434 Fed.Appx. 420, 421 (5th Cir. 2011) (unpublished); Callier v. Cain, 2012 WL 2602958, at *1 n.1 (W.D. La. June 6, 2012) (“Indeed, the evidence suggests that he no longer wishes to pursue this matter since he has not contacted the court since he submitted his in forma pauperis application on January 25, 2012, some four months ago.”).
Here, Movant Moore failed to file a notice of a change of address, which is required, and failed to prosecute his case. See Martinez-Reyes v. United States, 2016 WL 8740494 *4 (S.D. Tex.-McAllen, Oct. 10, 2016) (explaining that, generally, “litigants, including prisoners, bear the burden of filing notice of a change of address in such a way that will bring attention of the court to address change.”) (quoting Theede v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 172 F.3d 1262, 1267 (10th Cir. 1999)). Movant's failure to submit an updated mailing address-evinces his failure to prosecute his own case.
Movant's failure to prosecute this case is not an action threatens the judicial process- thereby rendering a dismissal with prejudice unwarranted. Therefore, upon consideration of all relevant factors, the Court has determined that the interests of justice are best served by a dismissal of this case without prejudice.
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, it is recommended that the above-styled action be dismissed, without prejudice, for Movant's failure to prosecute his own case. The undersigned further recommends Movant be denied a certificate of appealability sua sponte, which refers to this cause only and does not prevent refiling.
Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the Magistrate Judge's Report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings and recommendations contained in the Report.
A party's failure to file written objections to the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen days after being served with a copy shall bar that party from de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations and, except on grounds of plain error, from appellate review of unobj ected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
So ORDERED and SIGNED.