Opinion
Civil Action 1:22-CV-455
09-06-2023
COREY RICHARDSON v. WARDEN, FCI BEAUMONT
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ZACK HAWHOM, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Corey Richardson, a prisoner previously confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
The petition was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
Discussion
On September 5, 2023, a document mailed to Petitioner at his last known address, was returned to the court with a notice that it was undeliverable because Petitioner is no longer at that address. Eastern District of Texas Local Rule CV-11(d) requires pro se litigants to keep the clerk advised in writing of their current address. As of this date, Petitioner has not provided the court with his current address.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. Griggs v. S.G.E. Mgmt., 905 F.3d 835, 844 (5th Cir. 2018); Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997).
Without a current mailing address, the court is unable to contact Petitioner or proceed with this petition. Therefore, Petitioner's failure to comply with the Local Rules warrants dismissal without prejudice for want of prosecution.
Recommendation
This Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Objections
Within fourteen days after receipt of the magistrate judge's report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.