From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cooper v. Dao Hung

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION
Nov 7, 2019
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:10cv126 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2019)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:10cv126

11-07-2019

GARY NORMAN COOPER v. DAO HUNG, ET AL.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court previously entered an order directing Robert Cooper to inform the court whether he wished to continue to pursue this matter. A copy of the order was sent to Mr. Cooper at the address he provided to the court. The copy of the order sent to Mr. Cooper was returned as unclaimed, indicating Mr. Cooper is no longer at the address provided. Mr. Cooper has not provided the court with a new address.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action for want of prosecution sua sponte whenever necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Anthony v. Marion County General Hospital, 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980). See also McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126 (5th Cir. 1988). The orderly and expeditious disposition of cases requires that if a litigant's address changes, he has a duty to inform the court of the change. Shannon v. State of Louisiana, 1988 WL 54768, No. 87-3951 (E.D. La. May 23, 1988) (quoting Perkins v. King, No. 84-3310 (5th Cir. May 19, 1985)); see also Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (pro se plaintiff's case dismissed for failure to prosecute when he failed to keep the court apprised of his current address). The exercise of the power to dismiss for failure to prosecute is committed to the sound discretion of the court and appellate review is confined solely in whether the court's discretion was abused. Green v. Forney Engineering Co., 589 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1979); Lopez v. Aransas County Independent School District, 570 F.2d 541 (5th Cir. 1978).

By failing to provide the court with a correct address, plaintiff has prevented the court from communicating with him and moving this case towards resolution. He has therefore failed to diligently prosecute this case. This matter should therefore be dismissed.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. A final judgment shall be entered in accordance with this memorandum opinion. If Mr. Cooper wishes to have this case reinstated on the court's active docket, he may do so by providing the court with a current address within 60 days of the date set forth below.

SIGNED this the 7 day of November, 2019.

/s/_________

Thad Heartfield

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Cooper v. Dao Hung

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION
Nov 7, 2019
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:10cv126 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2019)
Case details for

Cooper v. Dao Hung

Case Details

Full title:GARY NORMAN COOPER v. DAO HUNG, ET AL.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION

Date published: Nov 7, 2019

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:10cv126 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2019)