Opinion
No. 3:02-CV-350-P
June 6, 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, this case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge follow:
Parties:
Petitioner is an inmate in the custody of Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID). Respondent is Janie Cockrell, Director of TDCJ-ID.
Statement of Case:
On February 20, 2002, petitioner filed this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 7, 2002, the Court sent Petitioner a notice of deficiency that he failed to either pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court also notified Petitioner the petition was deficient because it was not on the appropriate forms. The Court ordered the Clerk of the Court to send Petitioner the appropriate habeas corpus form. On March 18, 2002, the Court vacated its deficiency order as to the payment of the filing fee because Petitioner paid the $5.00 fee. The Court granted Petitioner until March 27, 2002, to file his petition on the appropriate form. The Court informed Petitioner that failure to comply with the Order to file his petition on the appropriate form could result in a recommendation that the petition be dismissed. Petitioner has failed to comply with the Court's Order.
Discussion:
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, 82 S.Ct. 1386 (1962)). Petitioner has failed to comply with the Court's Order. Accordingly, his petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Larson, 157 F.3d at 1031-32 (holding that court acted within its discretion in dismissing a case for failure to submit the prisoner trust fund statement or pay the filing fee as required by the PLRA).
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendation on Plaintiff by mailing a copy to him by United States Mail. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must serve and file written objections within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation shall bar that party from a de novo determination by the District Court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S.Ct. 466, 472 (1985). Additionally, any failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within ten days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).