Opinion
Civil Action 6:20cv622
05-02-2023
ERIC SUDDS, #01212661 v. K. PUTNAM, ET AL.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
K. NICOLE MITCHELL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Eric Sudds, a prisoner confined within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit. The case was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
The docket reflects that Plaintiff has not communicated with for a substantial amount of time. Specifically, he has not communicated with the Court since he filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis-and did not respond to the Order or the filing of a Martinez Report in April 2021, (Dkt. #16).
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.”). The district court has both specific and inherent power to control its own docket “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time.” See U.S. v Colomb, 419 F.3d 292, 299 (5th Cir. 2005); see also Miller v. Thaler, 434 Fed.Appx. 420, 421 (5th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).
Here, Plaintiff's failure to communicate with the Court evinces his failure to prosecute his case. See, e.g., Callier v. Cain, 2012 WL 2602958, at *1 n.1 (W.D. La. June 6, 2012) (“Indeed, the evidence suggests that he no longer wishes to pursue this matter since he has not contacted the court since he submitted his in forma pauperis application on January 25, 2012, some four months ago.”). Plaintiff's failure to prosecute is not an action that threatens the judicial process-thereby rendering a dismissal with prejudice unwarranted. Therefore, upon consideration of all factors, the Court has determined that the interests of justice are best served by a dismissal of this case without prejudice.
In accordance with Campbell v. Wilkinson, the Court further recommends suspending the statute of limitations in this case for a period of sixty days from date of final judgment. 988 F.3d 798, 801 n.1 (5th Cir. 2021) (explaining that “[w]here further litigation of [a] claim will be time-barred, a dismissal without prejudice is no less severe a sanction than a dismissal with prejudice, and the same standard of review is used.'”).
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, it is recommended that the above-styled action be dismissed, without prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute his own case. The Court further recommends that the statute of limitations in this case be suspended for a period of sixty days from the date of Final Judgment.
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, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
So ORDERED and SIGNED.