Opinion
3:02-MC-092-N
November 25, 2002
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the District Court in implementation thereof, this cause has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, as evidenced by his signature thereto, are as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Type of Case: This is a miscellaneous action.
Parties: Plaintiff's address or place of confinement is presently unknown. He was incarcerated at the Clements Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice — Institutional Division in Amarillo, Texas, at the time of filing this action. Defendants are Judge Faith Johnson, the Criminal District Court Reporter, District Clerk Jim Hamlin, the Sheriff of Dallas County, and District Attorney William Hill, Jr. The court has not issued process in this case.
Findings and Conclusions: On October 23, 2002, the magistrate judge issued a Notice of Deficiency and Order to Plaintiff. The order notified Plaintiff that he had neither paid the $30.00 filing fee nor submitted a proper request to proceed in forma pauperis. The deficiency order then directed Plaintiff to cure the deficiency within thirty days and cautioned him that failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute. On November 8, 2002, the deficiency order was returned to the court with the notation "return to sender — offender paroled." As of the date of this recommendation, Petitioner has neither notified the court of his current address, nor complied with the October 23, 2002 order.
Rule 41(b), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, allows a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th 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., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S 626 (1962)).
As of this date Plaintiff apparently has lost interest in pursuing any claims in this district as evidenced by the fact that, although his prior address is now changed, he has not provided the court with his new mailing address. The court is not required to maintain this case on its active docket until Plaintiff, if ever, decides to advise it of his current address.
RECOMMENDATION:
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
A copy of this recommendation will be mailed to Plaintiff.