Clement Isadore Leach, Jr. v. Gerald Turlich, Et Al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
• Decided: January 7, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02123
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CLEMENT ISADORE LEACH, JR., #173368 CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 25-2123

GERALD TURLICH, ET AL. SECTION AL@(5)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION pro

se In October 2025, while incarcerated at the Plaquemines Parish Detention Center, plaintiff, Clement Isadore Leach, Jr., submitted a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the lawsuit, he claims that Sheriff Gerald Turlich and Warden Denise Narcisse, individually and in their official capacities, violated his constitutional rights by engaging with “outside law enforcement to conduct monitoring, surveillance, investigation and illegally 1 using the inmate population within the housing unit dorm to assist them.” He also alleges that officials interfered with his legal mail, ignored grievances, engaged in police entrapment, and denied him appropriate Muslim religious services. He requests monetary compensation, declaratory and injunctive relief. The complaint was treatedin a fso dremfiac ipeanut pbeercisause he failed to pay the filing fee or file an application for leave to proceed . The Clerk promptly issued a notice of 2 deficiency to Leach at his address of record, Plaquemines Parish Detention Center. On

R. Doc. 1, Complaint, p. 2. 2 R. Doc. 3, Notice of Deficient Filing, 10/16/2025. November 14, 2025, the envelope containing the notice of deficiency was returned to the Court with a notation “return to sender” and “not deliverable as addressed and unable to 3 forward.” Leach has made no attempt to contact the court to correct the stated deficiency or update his address. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule provides for dismissal of an aSectei oLnin bka vs.e Wd oanb athshe fRa.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 ruelmseay inv.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(5lltahs 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. eExsteemllpet from compliance with relevant rulEeds woaf rpdrso vc.e Hduarrarils aCnodu nstuyb Ssthaenrtififv'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. Additionally, all litigants are obligated to keep the Court advised of any address

3 R. Doc. 4. 2 See 4 change. EDLA Local Rules 11.1 and 41.3.1. “[T]he failure of a pro se litigant to notify the district court of an address change may be consideLreewdi sb vy. Hthaer ddyistrict 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 Leach at the Plaquemines Parish Detention Center, his address of record, was returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable. Leach has not complied with his legal obligation to update his contact information and provide a current address for the Court to be able to advance his 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 accepted by the district court, provided that the p ar tDyo huagsl absese vn. sUenrivteedd wSeirthvs n. oAtuictoe. tAhsast' nsuch consequences will result from a feani lbuaren cto object. ' , 79 5 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) ( ) (citing 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)).

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 that “[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 for failure to prosecute when a notice is returned to the court because of an incorrect address and no correction is made to the address for a period of 35 days from D tohueg rleatsusrn.”

5 referenced the previously app3l icable ten-day period for the filing of objections. RECOMMENDED Accordingly, for thDeI SrMeaIsSoSnEsD e WxpIrTeHssOeUd,T i tP iRs EJUDICE that Clement Isadore 7th Leach, Jr.’s complaint be for failure to prosecute. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of January, 2026.

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_

' Effective December 1, 2009, 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) was amended to extend the period to fourteen days. 4