Opinion
No. 3:03-CV-2556-G.
April 26, 2004
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 Court in implementation thereof, subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:
I. BACKGROUND
In October 2003, Plaintiff filed this action on a standard form used for actions filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He therein indicated that he sought "appropriate relief by United States District Judge." His allegations concern eligibility for parole. Due to the vague indication of relief sought, the Court sent plaintiff a Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire (MJQ) on October 27, 2003, that ordered him to "precisely identify the relief' that he seeks in this action. It also directed him to "verify the answers under penalty of perjury on the signature line" and return his answer within thirty days. It warned him, furthermore, that "[f]ailure to file answers to the Questions may result in the dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute."
The lack of specificity with regard to relief sought precludes accurate determination of the actual nature of this action. While plaintiff purports to bring the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the action might properly be construed as a habeas action depending upon the precise relief sought. Although the nature of this action has no impact on the ultimate recommendation issued herein, the Court notes that plaintiff has not demonstrated that he has exhausted state remedies required prior to filing a habeas action in this Court. Such lack of exhaustion provides another reason to dismiss this action to the extent it seeks habeas relief.
On November 6, 2003, the Court received plaintiff's answer to the MJQ. He therein declined to identify the relief he seeks in this action. Instead, he stated that "this Federal Court may use any available remedy to make good the wrong done." Furthermore, although plaintiff signed the bottom of his answer, he left the verification page blank.
II. INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (§ 1983 prisoner action). This authority flows from a court's inherent power to control its docket, prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases, and avoid congested court calendars. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962).
In this instance, plaintiff's answer to the MJQ is insufficient. To prosecute an action in federal court, furthermore, plaintiff must identify the precise relief that he seeks. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). He has not done so. His refusal to do so is sanctionable conduct. It is not the role of the Court to determine the relief that a party seeks. Without a proper identification of the relief that he seeks, plaintiff cannot properly prosecute this action. The failure to verify his answer, furthermore, is in direct disregard of an order of the Court.
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the order of the Court that he verify his answer to the MJQ. Furthermore, although he has filed "an answer" to the MJQ, such answer provides no additional information regarding the relief plaintiff seeks in this action. It fails to raise plaintiff's pleading to the level required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Plaintiff has in effect filed no answer. The Court considers an insufficient answer the same as no answer at all. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss this action.
III. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with an order of the Court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
A dismissal without prejudice means that the dismissal itself will not require dismissal of later-filed action that raises the same or similar claims. However, any later-filed action may be dismissed for procedural irregularities, including a failure to correct the pleading deficiency noted herein and untimeliness under the applicable statute of limitations.