Eric J. Duarte v. Massachusetts Department of Correction, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts
• Decided: October 20, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-11370
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

) ERIC J. DUARTE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 25-cv-11370-JDH ) MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

HEDGES, M.J. In May 2025, plaintiff Eric J. Duarte, a pretrial detainee confined at Bridgewater State Hospital, filed a complaint, Docket No. 1, an Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Docket No. 2 (“Application”), and a motion requesting joinder of claims, Docket No. 3 (“Motion”). On July 23, 2025, the Court issued an Order denying Mr. Duarte’s Application without prejudice. Docket No. 5. The Order advised Mr. Duarte that he cannot proceed without prepayment of the filing fee unless he shows, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), that the alleged misconduct set forth in his complaint places him under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Id. The Order further instructed Mr. Duarte that, if he wished to proceed with this action, he must, within 35 days of the Order’s entry, either pay the filing fee or show cause why the “three strikes” rule of § 1915(g) does not bar him from proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee. Id. A copy of that Order was mailed to Mr. Duarte at Bridgewater State Hospital. Docket No. 6. Mr. Duarte has not responded pursuant to the July 23, 2025 Order, and the time to do so has expired. See Docket No. 5 at 4. It is a long-established established principle that the Court has the authority to dismiss an action sua sponte for a party’s failure to prosecute his action and his failure to follow the Court's orders. See, e.g., Santos v. Dep’t of Educ. of Com. of Puerto

Rico, 108 F. App’x 638, 640 (1st Cir. 2004). Based on the foregoing, and in accordance with the Court’s Order, Docket No. 5, this action should be dismissed. Therefore, Mr. Duarte’s Motion, Docket No. 3, is DENIED and this case is returned to the Clerk’s Office for reassignment to a District Judge for further proceedings. I recommend that the District Judge to whom this action is reassigned dismiss this action without prejudice.1 SO ORDERED. Dated: October 20, 2025 /s/ Jessica D. Hedges United States Magistrate Judge

1 Under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 72(a) and Rule 3 of the Rules for United States Magistrate Judges in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, any party seeking review by a district judge of these determination(s) and order(s) must serve and file any objections within fourteen (14) days of being served a copy of this Order. The written objections must specifically identify the portion of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections.