Justin D. Lawrence v. Montgomery County Sheriffs Department, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
• Decided: December 23, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-01206
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED D ber 29, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT othe □□□□□□□ clon SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

JUSTIN D LAWRENCE, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-01206 § MONTGOMERY COUNTY SHERIFFS — § DEPARTMENT, ef al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Justin D. Lawrence filed this prisoner pro se civil rights action while confined in the Montgomery County Jail. See Doc. No. 1. On July 9, 2025, the Court ordered the plaintiff to submit a More Definite Statement to clarify his claims and warned him that the failure to comply with the order within thirty days could result in the dismissal of this case for want of prosecution. Doc. No. 10. In addition, the Court granted Lawrence’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ordering him to pay $25 a month towards the $350 filing fee pursuant to Gay v. Texas Dep’t of Corrections, State Jail Div., 117 F.3d 240, 242 (Sth Cir. 1997). See Doc. 9. His first installment was due on or before August 15, 2025. Id. at 2. To date, the plaintiff has neither submitted any installments towards the filing fee

nor a More Definite Statement as ordered. The plaintiffs failure to pursue this action leads the Court to conclude that he lacks due diligence. Therefore, under the inherent powers 1/2

necessarily vested in a district court to manage its own affairs, this Court determines that dismissal for want of prosecution is appropriate. See FED. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 489 (2000) (stating that “[t]he failure to comply with an order of the court is grounds for dismissal with prejudice”); Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030 (Sth Cir. 1998) (noting that a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with any court order). The plaintiff is advised, however, that relief from this order may be granted upon a proper showing in accordance with Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A proper showing includes, at minimum, full compliance with the Court’s previous instructions and orders, including submitting a More Definite Statement and installments towards the filing fee as ordered. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution. 2. This case is CLOSED. 3. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT. The Clerk will send this Order to the parties of record. Signed this O38 ( ey of December 2025.

[NAm I ANDREWS.HANEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2