Joshua Joe Driggs v. Grayson County Jail, ET AL.

E.D. Texas

Joshua Joe Driggs v. Grayson County Jail, ET AL.

DecidedMay 14, 2026

Docket4:26-cv-00013

StatusUnknown

This text of Joshua Joe Driggs v. Grayson County Jail, ET AL. (Joshua Joe Driggs v. Grayson County Jail, ET AL.) 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

Joshua Joe Driggs v. Grayson County Jail, ET AL., (E.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

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

JOSHUA JOE DRIGGS, #72900 § § v. § NO. 4:26-CV-00013-BD § GRAYSON COUNTY JAIL, ET AL. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Proceeding pro se, Joshua Joe Driggs filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action was assigned to me, Dkt. 2, and Driggs consented to my conducting all proceedings, Dkt. 5. A copy of an order that was sent to Driggs at the address he provided has been returned to the court marked “INMATE NOT IN CUSTODY, RELEASED ON 3/26/26.” Dkt. 8. It is Driggs’s responsibility to notify the clerk of court of his current physical mailing address. See Loc. R. CV- 11(d). Because Driggs has not updated his address with the court, he has 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. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–31 (1962); 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 any order of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In this case, Driggs has failed to update the court with his current address and has prevented the court from communicating with him regarding his case. Therefore, the case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. It is ORDERED that the case is dismissed without prejudice. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of May, 2026.

Bill Davis United States Magistrate Judge

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

JOSHUA JOE DRIGGS, #72900 § § v. § NO. 4:26-CV-00013-BD § GRAYSON COUNTY JAIL, ET AL. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Proceeding pro se, Joshua Joe Driggs filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action was assigned to me, Dkt. 2, and Driggs consented to my conducting all proceedings, Dkt. 5. A copy of an order that was sent to Driggs at the address he provided has been returned to the court marked “INMATE NOT IN CUSTODY, RELEASED ON 3/26/26.” Dkt. 8. It is Driggs’s responsibility to notify the clerk of court of his current physical mailing address. See Loc. R. CV- 11(d). Because Driggs has not updated his address with the court, he has 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. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–31 (1962); 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 any order of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In this case, Driggs has failed to update the court with his current address and has prevented the court from communicating with him regarding his case. Therefore, the case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. It is ORDERED that the case is dismissed without prejudice. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of May, 2026.

Bill Davis United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Joshua Joe Driggs v. Grayson County Jail, ET AL., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joshua-joe-driggs-v-grayson-county-jail-et-al-txed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack