Opinion
Civil Action 6:23cv487
02-06-2024
DOMINIQUE GONZALES v. STATE OF TEXAS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
K. NICOLE MITCHELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while she was an inmate of the Ellis County Jail. (Dkt. #1.) The case was referred to the undersigned for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
On October 2, 2023, the Court found that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis was not accompanied by the required trust account statement and that her pleading did not coherently allege any facts to support a constitutional claim. (Dkt. #4.) Accordingly, the Court gave her thirty days to satisfy the fee requirement and file an amended complaint. (Id.) The order expressly cautioned that failure to comply with either requirement could result in dismissal. (Id. at 2, 3.)
On October 23, 2023, the Court received a notice from Plaintiff that her address had changed to a residence outside of jail, and on November 17, 2023, the Court's Order was returned as undeliverable, marked “not in custody.” (Dkt. ##5, 6.) Accordingly, the Court mailed another copy of its Order to Plaintiff at her new address on November 17, 2023. That mailing was not returned to the Court and is presumed to have been delivered. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has explained that where a letter is properly placed in the United States mail, a presumption exists that the letter reached its destination in the usual time and was actually received by the person to whom it was addressed. Faciane v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 931 F.3d 412, 420-21 and n.9 (5th Cir. 2019).
Plaintiff did not comply with either aspect of the Court's order. 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.”). Dismissal with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order is an extreme sanction that should be employed only when “the plaintiff's conduct has threatened the integrity of the judicial process [in a way that] leav[es] the Court no choice but to deny that plaintiff its benefit.” McNeal v. Papasan, 842 F.2d 787, 790 (5th Cir. 1988) (citing Rogers v. Kroger Co., 669 F.2d 317, 321 (5th Cir. 1982)). A court should consider lesser sanctions, such as fines, costs, damages, conditional dismissals, and dismissal without prejudice, among other lesser measures, prior to dismissing an action with prejudice. McNeal, 842 F.2d at 793.
Here, Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's orders is not an action that 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, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the Court and failure to take the steps necessary to prosecute this case.
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 unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79F.3d 1415,1430 (5thCir.1996) (en banc).
So ORDERED and SIGNED.