Hines, Sr. v. Grayson County Detention Center

E.D. Texas

Hines, Sr. v. Grayson County Detention Center

DecidedAugust 7, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-00679

StatusUnknown

This text of Hines, Sr. v. Grayson County Detention Center (Hines, Sr. v. Grayson County Detention Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hines, Sr. v. Grayson County Detention Center, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

ERIC DEONNE HINES, SR., #43341 § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25cv679 § GRAYSON COUNTY DETENTION § CENTER, ET AL. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pro se plaintiff Eric Deonne Hines, Sr., filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 1. The action was assigned to me in accordance with the Standing Order Assigning Prisoner Civil Rights Cases Filed in the Sherman Division to a Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 2. Hines consented to have a magistrate judge conduct all proceedings. Dkt. 5. On July 1, 2025, the court ordered Hines, within 14 days, to either pay the $405.00 filing fee or submit a certified in forma pauperis data sheet or equivalent reporting trust-fund activities for the last six months. Dkt. 4. Hines received the order on July 11, 2025. Dkt. 7. He failed to comply with it and has therefore failed to prosecute his case. The exercise of the power to dismiss for failure to prosecute is committed to the sound discretion of the court; appellate review is only for abuse of that discretion. Green v. Forney Eng’g Co., 589 F.2d 243, 247 (5th Cir. 1979); Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. ISD, 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978). Not only may a district court dismiss for want of prosecution upon motion of a defendant, but it may also dismiss an action sua sponte when necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of a case. Anthony v. Marion Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980). A district court may dismiss an action for failure of a litigant to prosecute or to comply with a court order. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In this case, Hines has failed to comply with the court’s order. Therefore, the case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). It is ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

ERIC DEONNE HINES, SR., #43341 § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25cv679 § GRAYSON COUNTY DETENTION § CENTER, ET AL. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pro se plaintiff Eric Deonne Hines, Sr., filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 1. The action was assigned to me in accordance with the Standing Order Assigning Prisoner Civil Rights Cases Filed in the Sherman Division to a Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 2. Hines consented to have a magistrate judge conduct all proceedings. Dkt. 5. On July 1, 2025, the court ordered Hines, within 14 days, to either pay the $405.00 filing fee or submit a certified in forma pauperis data sheet or equivalent reporting trust-fund activities for the last six months. Dkt. 4. Hines received the order on July 11, 2025. Dkt. 7. He failed to comply with it and has therefore failed to prosecute his case. The exercise of the power to dismiss for failure to prosecute is committed to the sound discretion of the court; appellate review is only for abuse of that discretion. Green v. Forney Eng’g Co., 589 F.2d 243, 247 (5th Cir. 1979); Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. ISD, 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978). Not only may a district court dismiss for want of prosecution upon motion of a defendant, but it may also dismiss an action sua sponte when necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of a case. Anthony v. Marion Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980). A district court may dismiss an action for failure of a litigant to prosecute or to comply with a court order. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In this case, Hines has failed to comply with the court’s order. Therefore, the case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). It is ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hines, Sr. v. Grayson County Detention Center, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hines-sr-v-grayson-county-detention-center-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack