Brian Washington v. Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
• Decided: December 16, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02124
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BRIAN WASHINGTON, #238164 CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 25-2124

PORTEOUS, HAINKEL & JOHNSON, ET AL. SECTION AO@(5)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION pro se

In October 2025, while incarcerated at the St. Tammany Parish Jail, plaintiff, 1 Brian Washington, submitted a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the lawsuit, she claims that she was framed for automotive insurance fraud by different law firms and false information was disseminated. She requests $100,000,000 in monetary compensation. The complaint was treateind foasrm dae fpicaiuepnetr ifsor failure to pay the filing fee or file an application for leave to proceed . The Clerk promptly issued a notice of 2 deficiency to Washington at her address of record, St. Tammany Parish Jail. On November 10, 2025, the envelope containing the notice of deficiency was returned to the Court with a

1 ECF No. 1, Complaint. Washington has filed numerous civil proceedings in this Court. The Court is aware that Washington identifies as a trSaene sWgeansdhienrg fteomn avl. eS.t . TaAmddmitainoyn aPlalyr,i sthh Jea iClourt notes that Washington has now acquired three strikes under thea PdoLpRtAed based on her history of filing frivolous and malicious lawsuits while incarcerated. , Civ. Action No. 25-1835, 2025 WL 3086555 (E.D. La. Sept. 29, 2025), , 2025 WL 3080072 (E.D. La. Nov. 4, 2024). 2 ECF No. 2, Notice of Deficient Filing, 10/15/2025. 3 notation “refused” and “undeliverable as addressed and unable to forward.” Washington has made no attempt to correct the stated deficiency or update her address. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule provides for dismissal of an aScetei oLnin bka vs.e Wd oanb athshe Rfa.i lCuor.e of the plaintiff to prosecute or comply with any order of the court. , 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962) (noting courts have inherent authority “to clear their calendars of cases that haveH ruelsmeya ivn.e Sdt adtoer omf aTnetx absecause of the inaction or dilatorinessM ocfC tuhlleo upgahrt vie. sL ysneaeukginhg relief”); , 929B Fr.i2ndk m16a8n,n 1 v7. 1D a(l5laths CCoiru. n1t9y9 D1)e;p uty Sheriff Abner , 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988);p ro se

, 813 F.2d 744, 749 (5th Cir. 1987). A litigan t Bisi rnl ovt. eExsteemllept from compliance with relevant rulEeds woaf rpdrso vc.e Hdaurrrails aCnodu nstuyb Sshtaenritfifv'se Dlaewpt.. , 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. p1r9o8 s1e); , 864 F. Supp. 633, 637 (S.D. Tex. 1994). A litigant who fails to comply with procedural rules has the burden of establishing exKceurssahb vl.e D neergolzeicetr, which is a strict standard requiring prBoirolf of more than mere ignorance. , 851 F.2d 1509, 1512 (5th Cir. 1988); , 660 F.2d at 593. FurthSeeermore, all litigants are obligated to keep the Court advised of any address 4 change. EDLA Local Rules 11.1 and 41.3.1. The complaint form signed by

3 ECF No. 3.

4 Rule 11 provides that “[e]ach attorney and pro se litigant has a continuing obligation promptly to notify the court of any address or telephone number change.” Rule 41.3.1 provides t hat “[t]he failure of an attorney or pro se litigant to notify the court of a current e-mail or postal address may be considered cause for dismissal fo2r failure to prosecute when a notice is returned to Washington and used to initiate this action contains the following declaration: “I understand that if I am released or transferred, it is my responsibility to keep the Court informed of my whereabouts and failure to do so may result in this action being dismissed with prejudice.” ECF No. 1 at p. 6 (¶ VI, Declaration No. 2). “[T]he failure of a pro se litigant to notify the district court of an address change may be consiLdeewriesd v b. yH athred ydistrict court as an additional cause for dismissal for failure to prosecute.” , 248 F. App'x 589, 2007 WL 2809969, at *4 n. 1 (5th Cir. 2007). More than 35 days ago, mail sent to Washington at the St. Tammany Parish Jail, her address of record, was returned by the United States Postal

Service as undeliverable. Furthermore, based on the Court’s independent research, it 5 appears that Washington was released from custody on September 25, 2025. Yet, Washington has not complied with her legal obligation to update her contact information and provide a current address for the Court to be able to advance her civil case on the docket. Accordingly, the complaint should be dismissed for failure to prosecute. A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions

the court because of an incorrect address and no correction is made to the address for a period of 35 days from the return.”

5 A member of the undersigned’s staff conducted a search through VINElink at https://doc.louisiana.gov/imprisoned-person-programs-resources/offender-information/ 3 accepted by the district court, provided that the p ar tDyo huagsl absese vn. sUenrivteedd wSeirthvs n. oAtuitcoe. tAhsast' nsuch consequences will result from a feani lbuarne cto object. ' , 79 6 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) ( ) (citing 28 U.S.C. 63R6E(CbO)(M1)M).E N DED Accordingly, for thDeI SMreIaSsSoEnDs WeIxTpHreOssUeTd ,P RitE JUisD ICE that Brian Washington’s complaint be 16th for failure to prosecute. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of December, 2025.

MICHAEL B. NORTH U N IT E D S T A T E S M A G I S T R A T E J U D_G__E_

Douglass 6 ' referenced the previously applicable ten-day period for the filing of objections. E ffective December 1, 2009, 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) was amended to extend the period to fourteen days. 4